[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

[Jim Quinn]

Hi Marty,

Thanks for your comments. 

Putting meeting minutes inthe KFactor is a great idea. 
I presume we will start doing that with the next board meeting and the next 
KFactor.

Most of all I would like to say that all officers are firstly members, just like 
every other member of the NSRCA.

You are correct that almost all of us are not involved in "actual" elections 
because for the past 10 or more years none of us have had a second candidate 
running against us for the same position.

As your current President I strongly believe that our District Vice Presidents 
are in communication with the members of their districts and represent them 
well.
I am very proud of our District Vice Presidents and Executive Officers as well.

I believe we are very transparent!

I should take responsibility for making the NSRCA so web based.
When I took over as Secretary seven years ago we were in deep financial trouble.
I was faced with spending hundreds of dollars to send out first and second 
notices for renewals.
The there were hundreds of additional dollars to be spent to confirm a renewal 
with each member.
I chose to communicate on the internet as often as possible.
I did, however, send out USPS notices to all members who were not on online.
When Scott McHarg took over as Secretary two years ago his fantastic computer 
skills brought us to a higher level.

Currently we are in good financial shape so spending $300.00+ for mailing 
ballots was not a problem.
That is thanks to those volunteer officers who have given so much of their time 
to put us back on a strong financial footing.

Finally, let me apologize to every individual member who is currently paying 
his/her dues.
I have not been the best in crossing every "T" and dotting every "I".
I've crossed and dotted most, but not them all.
With all that said, however, I am extremely proud of our officers I have had 
the  pleasure of serving with these past seven years.

Jim Quinn





________________________________
From: Marty King <mking46516 at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Mon, December 3, 2012 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes


Thanks Jon, I am sure that many of us appreciate your stepping up and out to 
inform the general membership of what is going on.

 I too, think making the governing body transparent is the wrong way to go. Most 
of our officials and vp's are in office, not as much from being elected through 
the "normal" channels (competitive) as volunteering to be elected.

That is simply the way it is in a hobby sport. However, the representation of 
the membership suffers. How do members find out what is the agenda? I am not 
refering to the actual meeting agenda, but the direction some want the NSRCA to 
move. Surveys are good IF the questions are not biased. 

General members need to comment here(the web) or to their vp's when board 
discussions turn inward. But, all members, not just those on the Internet, need 
to know what they discuss. I am surprised that the board minutes no longer make 
it into our general communication tool, the K-Factor. As small as some vp 
reports have been (not you Anthony, you fill a column up well) and the general 
lack of photos and ads, I am sure there was room for the minutes.

In reading through your take on the articles up for the vote, I agree with your 
assessment.


Thank you for standing up got the membership! I was about not to renew next 
year.

Marty
NSRCA 2551

Marty King 


King Aero, Inc
MJK Consulting

 574-304-5781

On Dec 3, 2012, at 9:55 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121204/08a2d89d/attachment.html>