[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010

[Keith Black]

Right on Jon! I couldn't have said it better.

Wayne, I strongly agree with your sentiment that our elected officers should
represent us and not there own interests. However, I think you're posts on
this subject are inappropriate, divisive and very unhealthy for our
organization (perhaps that's your goal as I've noticed a trend in your
emails over the years).

I also see a day and night difference between the T/O landing incident
you've sited and Derek asking the list what their opinion is on the 2009
sequence. From what I've heard the sequence committee, and even Troy
himself, have admitted that there was not as much focus on the 2009 sequence
as the 2007 sequence. I appreciate Derek taking the effort to make sure we
don't get saddled with something we don't want for two years. As long as the
board respects the memberships' opinion when the dust clears then what Derek
is doing is a good thing.

If however, the membership were to strongly favor the initially proposed
2009 sequence and the NSRCA board were to submit the newly proposed 2009
sequence then you and I would agree Wayne (though I'd try and express myself
in a more gentlemanly manner). I have confidence that the board will not let
us down this time because I think the NSRCA board we have now has a much
better balance of power and I know that most on the board are very
conscientious.

BTW, regardless of political opinions all on the NSRCA board work their
butts off to keep this wagon rolling, if you don't like the way it's being
run you can always run for office rather than quitting the NSRCA. Several
positions were unopposed this time around.

Respectfully,
Keith Black


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010


> I'm going to choose my words very carefully, so bear with me.  When
> someone becomes an officer, thru election, of an organization such as
> NSRCA, one of the things the members expect them to do is to represent
> their interests and will, and abide by it  In this case the members
> interests and will were known and published.  Regardless of their
> INTENT, the PERCEPTION is that certain people in executive positions in
> NSRCA submitted or signed a proposal  to AMA directly counter to the
> will and expectations of the membership, regarding TOs and landings.
> Was this legal according to AMA?  Yes.  Was it proper given their
> status in NSRCA?  We all have our opinions.  Many hold officers to a
> higher standard, and expect them to put their own interests aside while
> officers.  Perceptions, good or bad, can quickly become reality.
>
> I think Derek K. is doing the right thing relooking at the proposed
> sequence for 2009, and trying to establish what the will of the CURRENT
> NSRCA membership is.  2 years have passed, and things may have changed.
>   Look at the shorter sequences for FAI as an example.  Look a how long
> it takes to fly a round of FAI and masters at a local contest.  I
> believe he and the board will respond to the will of the membership.
> If the membership still wants the older pattern, so be it.
>
> The thing we also have to remember is that even if the NSRCA board
> submits exactly what we as members agree on to AMA, any AMA member can
> submit something to AMA to be considered by the committee for
> aerobatics.  I looked at the membership of that committee last nite in
> the latest issue of Model Aviation (this info is not online at the AMA
> site; why, I don't know).  Most are prominent members of NSRCA.  John
> Fuqua, Lance, Derek K. are on it, just to name a few.  Once the issue
> is before them as AMA district reps to that board, we need to let them
> know how we want them to vote on ALL of the issues before them, as AMA
> members, not NSRCA members.  AND we need to make sure they VOTE.  This
> has not always been the case in the past.
>
> Jon Lowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: twtaylor <twtaylor at ftc-i.net>
> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 1:43 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed Masters Sequence for 2009/2010
>
>
>
>
> I don't understand something Wayne. Are you saying that Ron (or any
> other
> board member) has to give up the right to petition the AMA Contest
> board for
> a rules change simply because they're a NSRCA VP?
>
> Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion