rules proposals final result

[Tony Stillman]

Lance:
On issue with the survey is that the survey results are not sent to the
contest board.  We use them to formulate rules proposals, and those are sent
to the board.

Perhaps we are missing something here and should create a survey in such a
form that the Contest Board could read it and get a good "feel" for what the
pattern community is thinking....  This would then help them to better
prepare to vote with the interests of the pattern community at heart.


Tony Stillman
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd.
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lance Van Nostrand" <patterndude at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: Re: rules proposals final result


> Tony,
> No, I don't think you understand my position.  In re-reading my note, I
> might not have been totally clear.  Here is a quote, " The NSRCA survey is
> designed to collect the opinions of the membership and we tend to view it
as
> a democratic process."  I think the NSRCA survey provided needed opinions
> and most all of these were turned into proposals to be submitted to the
next
> level up: the contest board.
>    What get me is that we are not working together as a team to make the
> best of the AMA processes and do right for the NSRCA.  I don't know you
> well, but I don't see you as subversive in the least.  I don't believe
that
> you would end run an NSRCA survey and submit your own proposal when the
> popular vote disagreed with your personal opinion.
> --Lance
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tony Stillman" <tony at radiosouthrc.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
>
>
> > Lance:
> > While I understand your position, I also understand that NSRCA does not
> > dictate rules to AMA for Pattern.  Maybe they should, but they don't.
> > Because of that, ANY open AMA member can AND SHOULD submit rules
proposals
> > as they see fit.
> >
> > It is then important that quality people be appointed by the AMA VP to
> serve
> > as contest board members.
> >
> > They then get to vote.
> >
> > There have been several times that I didn't agree with an NSRCA
proposal,
> > but because I was the NSRCA President, I didn't submit an optional
> proposal.
> > However, if I was not an officer and felt like a rule needed to be made,
I
> > should be free to submit any rules proposal that I want.
> >
> > Tony Stillman
> > Radio South
> > 3702 N. Pace Blvd.
> > Pensacola, FL 32505
> > 1-800-962-7802
> > www.radiosouthrc.com
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <patterndude at comcast.net>
> > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 3:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====================================
> > # 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.