rules proposals final result

Mon May 10 21:13:18 AKDT 2004

Thanks Gene, that's very interesting. What's really strange is there are two
contest board members that voted yes to EVERY SINGLE pattern proposal.
Perhaps it's just coincidence that they were really in favor of each
proposal, but it seems pretty strange.

Keith

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gene Maurice" <gene.maurice at comcast.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: rules proposals final result

> If anyone is interested, I have posted the results of the voting by the
> contest board on the PACSS web sit. This Excel spreadsheet show how each
of
> the CB members voted, Yes or No, on each of the pattern related proposals.
>
> If you're interested go to http://home.comcast.net/~pac-ss/Download.htm
>
> Gene Maurice
> gene.maurice at comcast.net
> Plano, TX
> NSRCA 877
> AMA 3408
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On
> Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:19 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
>
> Lance/Tony
>
> The results of the survey were published in the K-Factor, on the NSRCA
> website, forwarded to the NSRCA Board, and forwarded to John Fuqua,
Contest
> Board Chairman.  In one way or the order the contest board had access to
the
>
> results.
>
> A number of the board members are NSRCA members. The should have seen the
> results in the K-Factor. Also, John Fuqua could have forwarded the results
> to the board members. Whether he did or didn't is another story. I've got
to
>
> believe based on these facts that the board members had to have known  how
> the membership felt on all these issues.
>
>
> >From: "Tony Stillman" <tony at radiosouthrc.com>
> >Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
> >To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> >Subject: Re: rules proposals final result
> >Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 09:01:14 -0500
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
> Premium!
>
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/dire
> ct/01/
>
> =====================================
> # 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.