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

[Del K. Rykert]

Hi Jon.
     I feel strongly that you make some very accurate assessments of what truly is at the bottom of some of the opinions. Please realize I am not attacking or slamming anyone. I am only stating my opinion for whatever it may be worth. I know it has gnawed at me for years as I have held to the highest of standards in my profession. Thus I naturally expect the same from others. When it isn't there it does leave a tainted taste.  Just because it is legal and allowed don't make it the best or right decision for someone to make. I feel officers are obligated to represent the organization first and foremost. But that also is just MHO. It is great when the members of the organization are asked for their input. If the majorities opinions aren't followed it naturally leads to dissension and mistrust. 
 
        Del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 5:29 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070728/b5921eb8/attachment.html