[NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

Tue Dec 4 08:26:08 AKST 2012

Well said, Scott.

It really does take knowledge of how the NSRCA works to be able to work
together at the board level.  I would encourage all those that have opinions
to share them and to perhaps consider running for a district VP position as
well.  We can only grow with new blood coming in at the pilot level and also
at the board level - new blood usually means new ideas. 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott McHarg
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:19 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes

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/20121204/0c6fe10c/attachment.html>