[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Mon Dec 3 08:42:42 AKST 2012

I’m still waiting for one of the candidates to promise me a cell phone . . .

From: Larry Diamond 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:41 AM
To: General pattern discussion 
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

I have not been following this thread completely and my remarks here or only for the humor side...

In response to Tony's e-mail... I don't understand your logic in asking the questions below... It appears to be the same process that brought about Obama Care... Pass it or I (Prez) will and then your can read the details later...LOL

Ok... I haven't paid NSRCA dues for sometime, so I really shouldn't share an opinion here...

Larry Diamond

From: Anthony Frackowiak <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

I am really disturbed that I have to join this email list, survey the Facebook page and monitor the NSRCA website to find information that should have been published in the only "official" form of communication that the NSRCA has, the K-Factor. 

Having a vote on changing this organizations Bylaws without making available a proper discussion by the entire membership is improper. Each change in the Bylaws should have been published in the K-Factor in the exact wording being proposed and a rationale for the change expressed. Sending out a ballot as the only source of info for the proposed changes is also improper.

I asked both my District VP and the VP to not send out the Bylaws balloting until after the election. I don't understand why the BOD feel that the change to the Bylaws is absolutely necessary at this time. Why not get the election completed then finish in a proper manner the Bylaws revision? 

I totally agree with Jon Lowe. And I totally think it sucks that I have to wade through everything on this email list to get this info! 

Tony Frackowiak 

On Dec 3, 2012, at 8:28 AM, jonlowe at aol.com wrote:

  I asked Jim to publish the changes as well as rationale but he refused.   Very opaque to the membership. 

  I gave my reason for voting against the change in the dues grace period.  If you re-read it,  it is there. 

  Jon

  ----- Reply message -----
  From: "Scott McHarg" <scmcharg at gmail.com>
  Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 11:14 am
  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes
  To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

  Gentlemen, 
     For clarification purposes only, Jon Lowe is incorrect about Article V Section III.  Currently, the By-Laws say that any member who is delinquent for one calendar month will automatically have their membership services terminated.  The change makes membership delinquency 3 months which allows us to continue sending Kfactors to individuals who may have forgotten to pay their dues in time.  The way it reads right now, Kfactors should be terminated along with affiliation at the end of January.  We have extended the grace period to 3 months (the end of March).  We were trying to give you more, not less.  I don't understand why he would recommend to vote no on this.  I would suggest comparing the ballots to the By-Laws and make your own decision instead of using minutes to decide what was intended.  As hurried as the meetings are, I admit, I make mistakes as I have to take all the information down quickly and make them into minutes.  This is exactly why you should wait until you receive the "official" changes instead of jumping to conclusions.  From what I saw that Jim was sending out, items are much more defined than in the minutes.

  On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com> wrote:

    SInce the bylaw change ballots have now been sent out, in accordance with the current bylaws, and since the NSRCA board has failed to provide any rationale for the changes (if they are going to propose changes, you'd think they'd own up to why they want to change them), I thought I'd review the proposed changes here and provide comments.  Jim Quinn said that we could either vote for or against the entire package, or for individual items within the package.  I will review the changes item by item, and provide what I think is the rationale for the change.  As you will see below, I am recommending voting NO on several of the changes. I have not seen the official ballot yet and won't until at least Wednesday since I am out of town, so I am commenting on what was provided in the July 22nd NSRCA Board minutes. Note that there were several typos in those minutes, and that I have attempted to correct them where possible.

    Article II, Section I:  This would change the business address from the Secretary to the Treasurer of the club.  This is probably ok, since bills to the club are sent to the business address, and this could prevent delays in payment.  

    Article III, Section I:  This is part of the object and purpose of the Society.  It would delete "...in all of its phases." from the second sentence so it would now read:  "To aid, insofar as possible, the Academny of Model Aeronautics and other AMA activites, to further the advancement of model aircraft aerobatics."  This change appears to be a clarification change, and should be ok.

    Article V, Section II(b):  This appears to clarify the dues payment, and makes clear that dues should be made payable to NSRCA and not the treasurer.  Appears to be ok.

    Article V, Section III:  This would change termination of membership from one month to three months dues delinquency.  I see no reason for this change, and would commit the club to keep mailing K-Factors to delinquent members for two more months.  At a time when there is a lot of debate on the board about the expense of the K-Factor, this makes no sense.  Recommend voting NO on this item.

    Article VIII, Section II (c): This change would remove the requirement to mail out ballots, and changes the wording to allow whatever method the board deems appropriate for voting, without specifying any method at all for votes to be taken.  This change would also allow votes to be accepted until 10 days after Dec 31st, IF they were mailed out to members.  This change appears to be why the abortive attempt was made for an electronic vote for officers this year, which disenfranchised many members who were not aware a vote was being taken.  We do NOT require web access to be a member of NSRCA, and until we do, we MUST allow for ALL members to vote on officers of NSRCA.  Strongly recomment voting NO on this change. 

    Article VIII, Section III (e):  This would change voting for District VPs in the same manner as the method in Article VIII, Section II (c) above.  Strongly recommend voting NO.

    Article VIII, Section III (f): This change was listed as Article VII, Section III (f) in the Board meeting minutes, which I believe was a typo.  This is a continuation of the change above to Article VIII, Section III(e) on voting deadlines.  Strongly recommend voting NO.

    Article IX, Section I:  This removes some unnecessary wording from the first paragraph of the Communications and Promotions portion of the by-laws.  It appears to be a mistake made when this portion of the bylaws was writen.  Appears to be ok.

    Article IX, Section II:  This would remove the requirement for the K-Factor to be mailed to members.  It would have to be "made available to all members", but doesn't say how.  SInce the proposed wording is unclear, recommend voting NO on this change.

    Article IX, Section III (a):  This removes the requirement for a Communications and Promotions manager appointed by the BOD, and changes that responsibility to the BOD itself.  However, it does not assign that responsibility to anyone on the board.  But it retains the provision for the board to appoint someone to be that manager. As a result the paragraph appears to contradict itself.  Recommend voting NO on this change since the resulting language is ambiguous.

    Article IX, Section III (b):  This change changes says that the Board "...shall appoint a Judging Program Manager."  It currently says "...should appoint..."  This change appears to be ok.

    In summary, I believe that there are several problems with the proposed changes, and recommend that you read them carefully and understand each of the changes.  I'd recommend either voting NO to the whole package, or voting against the specific changes I've outlined above.

    Thanks for reading.

    Jon Lowe

    Jon

    _______________________________________________
    NSRCA-discussion mailing list
    NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
    http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

  -- 
  Scott A. McHarg
  Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20121203/3366504e/attachment.html>