[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Mon Dec 3 09:12:31 AKST 2012

Keith,
  I promise you can get a cell phone.  There are several vendors you can
pick from.  Two-year contract will suffice with the $35 activation fee
because everyone else is doing it.

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:42 AM, <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

>   I’m still waiting for one of the candidates to promise me a cell phone
> . . .
>
>  *From:* Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 11:41 AM
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121203/2a1d6a77/attachment.html>