rules proposals final result

[Ron Van Putte]

On May 7, 2004, at 3:25 PM, patterndude at comcast.net wrote:

> 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.

The AMA itself made the water more murky when it removed the privileged 
status of SIGs.  SIG rule change proposals used to automatically get a 
bye through the initial vote, while proposals from individuals had to 
go through the initial vote.  Now all proposals must go through the 
initial vote.  So, it is up to the contest board members to acquaint 
themselves with the rule proposals.  The NSRCA helps them decide by 
sending the results of NSRCA rule change surveys to the contest board 
chairman for distribution to the board.  It seems reasonable that 
active, involved contest board members would have no trouble 
determining which proposals were from a SIG and which were from 
individuals.  However, it also seems reasonable that all contest board 
members would participate in all votes.  We know this not to be the 
case, so we can infer that some contest board members are not as 
reliable as we expect.  In fact, some board members are so far out of 
touch that they vote "no" on more than 60% of the proposals, when their 
fellow board members vote "yes" on more than 75% of the proposals.  
However, the only person who can remove a "bad" board member is the AMA 
district VP from his district.  We need to pressure the AMA district 
VPs for the districts with "bad" board members to replace them with 
people who will do the job.  Only the guilty need feel offended.

Ron Van Putte


> --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.
>

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