[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Scott McHarg scmcharg at gmail.com
Mon Dec 3 09:26:23 AKST 2012 

Pffff!


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Keith Hoard <khoard at gmail.com> wrote:

> KEWL. I VOTE FOR SCOTT MCHARG FOR PRESIDENT!!!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:12, Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20121203/34094ff0/attachment.html>

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list