calling complete for new takeoff

[Bill Glaze]

Mark:
Just for informational purposes, in about 1995 or so, a person 
instituted some projected rules, through the regular mill, that, if 
passed, would have gutted IMAC.
It developed that the person instituting these rules changes didn't even 
fly any IMAC events.  I never found out why this person tried to 
institute these rules changes.  In any event, many of us active IMAC 
fliers became alarmed enough to contact our CB representatives, and all 
the proposed rules changes were defeated.  Again, I never found out 
how/why the CB could see through this individual's motive.  Perhaps they 
didn't see thru the motives, or simply didn't think that the proposals 
were satisfactory or would help the sport.  Again, I never was able to 
find out.  I was, however, greatly satisfied at tHe outcome.  In this 
case, the system worked to our advantage.

Bill Glaze
NSRCA   VP D2

Atwood, Mark wrote:

> I'm too new to the process to know how that would be handled, but I 
> for one would certainly support anything that reinstated scored 
> landings.  
>
>  
>
> Regarding the actual "Vote"...the FINAL voting forms do not contain 
> ANY...I mean ANY of the rational that is submitted for the rule...JUST 
> the text of the rule change.
>
>  
>
> For new members of the contest board (Vern and I) it took a fair bit 
> of work calling different proposer's to understand the motivations of 
> some. (most are straight forward, but there were a few that seemed out 
> of left field.)
>
>  
>
> I would imagine in future votes, being part of the entire process will 
> help, but there will always be the chance of a new board member 
> getting into the game late and having to make decisions.
>
>  
>
> It was interesting to me that ALL of the IMAC rule change proposals 
> came from the sig...there were NO independent proposals to confuse 
> things, and I believe their changed passed with a clean slate.
>
>  
>
> -M
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org 
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Grow Pattern
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:18 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: calling complete for new takeoff
>
>  
>
> Mark,
>
>          Your note really caught my attention.
>
>  
>
> I  have submitted many of the rules changes on behalf of the NSRCA. In 
> the section called Proposal logic, there is a reference to the NSRCA 
> survey result or the Precision Aerobatics SIG. I went and read some 
> old ones before I typed this and it is not very obvious until you get 
> to that section, where the proposal comes from. I think that this is 
> because the proposal is designed fro individual submission.
>
>  
>
> I know that we sent the NSRCA survey results in as well as the 
> proposals. We also put them in the K-Factor and on the web-site. But 
> this may well not be enough.
>
>  
>
> We can do better.
>
>  
>
> If fact Lamar already plans to have the results of the next NSRCA 
> survey broken down by AMA district so that AMA Contest Board members 
> can see how their districts voted on the proposals.
>
>  
>
> Based upon what you explained I now see that we should include the 
> results per proposal, very early in the text of the proposals to allow 
> board members to clearly see the source of the change request. I 
> really appreciate your candor because it helps us do a better job in 
> the future.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Eric.
>
>  
>
> P.S.  I am reliably informed that Vern was not the only one who 
> misunderstood the English of the landing and take-off change and 
> unintentionally voted the wrong way. Maybe we can get the board to 
> re-vote on the subject due to the announced confusion? Or we could put 
> in a Urgent proposal to have them vote again?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050517/63b8b888/attachment.html