Sequence Poll Results

[Grow Pattern]

Ref: Ron wrote. " One particular thing I'm talking about, is the wishes of those in the lower classes to have more frequent schedule changes.  Completely disregarded by the powers in charge of such things, those of us in that category felt, at least in the case of several I have spoken with, a disenfranchisement.  Kind of a "why bother?  Nobody's really listening."  The constant refrain of those in charge of such things seems to be "well, those classes are transitory in nature; why should we bother with changes."  "The flyer in Intermediate this year, will be in Advanced next year".  This faulty thinking,...."
 
The data was gathered in the last NSRCA survey that change was desired. The change could then be proposed in this current cycle. Is anyone running with this ball? or What has happened since then?

Just asking,

Eric.

Question-8

Should the Sportsman class be changed periodically 

YES = 142____         NO = 39_____          RESULT = PASS ____


Question-9

If "YES =", these classes should change, should they 
70___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
43___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)

26___ Other - Specify ____



Question-14 

Should the Intermediate class be changed periodically?

YES = 167____         NO = 13_____          RESULT = PASS ____

Question-15

 If "YES =", these classes should change, should they 
103___ Change every rule cycle (3 years) - WINNER
41___ Change every other rule cycle (6 years)

22___ Other - Specify ____

======================================================================

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Van Putte 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 12:54 PM
  Subject: Re: Sequence Poll Results

  On Jan 3, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Bill Glaze wrote:


    Opinion polls are a great idea, and are surely indicative of the wishes of  the membership, both pro and con.  Among many things, it gives the membership the idea that they are valued, and they are participating in the direction of pattern, helping to get it to grow.  That's to the good.
    However--and this is obvious, but needs to be pointed out again and again--if these wishes aren't heeded, then there is a resentment built that will be hard to make go away.  One particular thing I'm talking about, is the wishes of those in the lower classes to have more frequent schedule changes.  Completely disregarded by the powers in charge of such things, those of us in that category felt, at least in the case of several I have spoken with, a disenfranchisement.  Kind of a "why bother?  Nobody's really listening."  The constant refrain of those in charge of such things seems to be "well, those classes are transitory in nature; why should we bother with changes."  "The flyer in Intermediate this year, will be in Advanced next year".  This faulty thinking, or "one size fits all" attitude is harmful to those who are desperately interested in Pattern, and want to see it grow.  I feel that,  until  it can be demonstrated that there is no "double standard" those of us stuck in the lower classes will continue to feel a degree of being left out.  And, it's so easy to remedy. Anyway, that's the way I  see it.


  There are at least two ways to get rules changes passed. First, we can rely on the NSRCA leaders to put together surveys, establish committees to develop maneuver schedules and submit proposed schedules to AMA. OR, we can individually put together rule changes and/or maneuver schedule changes for submittal to AMA. Either way has a presumably equal chance of getting passed by the Contest Board, because NSRCA doesn't have an inside track with the Contest Board. Sure, NSRCA can lobby the Contest Board to pass their rule change proposals, but the Board can also ignore the lobbying, as it did in the last cycle. It often takes several cycles to get proposed changes passed, as it did with takeoff direction being the pilot's option. It took three tries to get that one passed. 

  I mention all the above, because a lot of the comments in this forum are about what someone else should do to implement rule and/or maneuver schedule changes to satisfy the writer. If a writer feels strongly enough about making changes, it is incumbent on him/her to take action in that direction; they should write a rule change proposal and submit it. It isn't rocket science. 

  BTW, I don't mean to include Bill in the 'inactive whiner' group, but his note triggered my 'response button' on this issue. 

  Ron Van Putte
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050103/4b005dd9/attachment-0001.html