Annex proposal

[Ron Van Putte]

On Jan 5, 2005, at 6:45 AM, Joe Lachowski wrote:

> It might have passed if it was written and ironed out before the 
> proposal was submitted. It probably would have had a much better 
> chance. The competition board would have at least had something to 
> work with in making their decision.

That's not true.  The only way AMA would have accepted an annex 
proposal was if AMA had veto power over the maneuver schedules.  The 
original proposal did not have that.  The second proposal did give AMA 
veto power, but didn't pass because one contest board member didn't 
vote.

Ron Van Putte

>
>> From: "Del Rykert" <drykert at localnet.com>
>> Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: Annex proposal
>> Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:07:35 -0500
>>
>> It was tried to implement but shot down Terry.
>>
>>     del
>>
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Terry Brox
>>   To: discussion at nsrca.org
>>   Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:44 PM
>>   Subject: Annex proposal
>>
>>
>>   What is the real or perceived problem with the Annex system. I am 
>> not an IMAC flier, but it looks like it works well for them.
>>   I don't want to start a war here, but I am not sure why one would 
>> have a problem with a system that could help alleviate the problems 
>> associated with our current system. Lets hear both sides. 
>> Respectfully Terry Brox
>
>
> =================================================
> To access the email archives for this list, go to
> http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
> To be removed from this list, go to 
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.