[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Tue Dec 4 06:18:59 AKST 2012

I think it is important however to remember this should not be a political
campaign here.  The next president does not get to wipe the slate clean and
pick his cabinet and advisors.  The same people that are getting told that
they are not transparent and how terrible they are and what a bad job has
been done here will be working with the next President, not for.  The Board
is comprised of 12 volunteer individuals.  Only one is getting voted on.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy <whodaddy10 at gmail.com>wrote:

> The appearance of impropriety is sometimes worse than impropriety itself
>  when full proper communication is not apparent one might get the opinion
> that there is a fox in the hen house .
>
> Those of you that take offense to the other Jon's directness may have to
> thin a skin to be leading .
>
> Jon is direct not much BS in him ..And he is completely correct in his
> observations .. Vote how you will ..
>
>
> Gary
>
> Shall we talk about rules changes or snaps and spins next..
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 4, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Jim Quinn <jaqfly at prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Jon,
>
>
> Thank you for your thoughts.****
>
>  ****
>
> Your comments are exactly why I told you that I did not want to publish a
> Board of Directors rationale for each proposal.****
>
> Your comments, I hope, will provide a basis for full membership discussion.
> ****
>
> I really like the fact that one individual member can tell the entire
> organization, be it only on the website, that he, "strongly recommends..."
> ****
>
>
> Jim Quinn
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Jon Lowe <jonlowe at aol.com>
> *To:* nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> *Sent:* Mon, December 3, 2012 9:55:17 AM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121204/22e39cd1/attachment.html>