[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Tue Dec 4 05:38:11 AKST 2012

Jim,

thanks very much for all  you have done.

Mike 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jim Quinn
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 8:16 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

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/20121204/182570f9/attachment.html>