Annex proposal

[Ron Van Putte]

On Jan 5, 2005, at 8:37 AM, randy10926 at comcast.net wrote:

> maybe it's time to dust it off and re-submit it.  Maybe more contest 
> board members will attend and vote.  It sounds like a good idea to try 
> and rework this before all the scedules are submitted.

My original plan for the annex proposal was for NSRCA to have control 
over an annex containing the maneuver descriptions and maneuver 
schedules, so that we could change maneuver schedules when we wanted to 
and not be limited by AMAs three-year rule change cycle.  AMA refused 
to even accept that proposal and, consequently, did not allow the 
contest board to vote on it.  The second proposal gave AMA veto power 
over the maneuvers and maneuver schedules.  It failed because a contest 
board member, who would have voted YES, forgot to vote in time.

Then AMA announced they were going to a two-year rules cycle, obviating 
one of the reasons for the annex proposal.  Since it's unlikely that 
we'd want to change maneuver schedules every year, AMA's rule change 
cycle change gave us a lot of what we wanted with the annex system 
except control over them.  Since AMA is unlikely to relinquish control 
over the maneuver schedules, submission of a new annex proposal 
wouldn't give us much we don't already have.

Ron Van Putte

> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> >
> > 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"
>  > >> Reply-To: discussion at nsrca.org
>  > >> To:
>  > >> 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.
>  >

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.