[NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

[Scott McHarg]

Mark and all CB members,
    I really doubt that anyone is upset because the proposals got turned
down.  The problem is in the lack of communication between the author
(whether it be an individual or committee).  There was no report published
as to what the issues were, there was no communication between the
author(s) and the CB, there was simply nothing.  I watched online daily to
see what the results of the interim vote was so that we could take
corrective action as necessary.  Those were never published and to be
honest, I'm not even sure there was an interim vote.  I spoke to a couple
of CB members and I will not call out their names in public as I do not
want to point fingers.  I was told that I would be hearing from the CB as
the process went on so that proposals that warranted improvement could be
massaged into a rule that made sense.  So, I patiently waited along with
the rest of the folks.  The next thing I know, all proposals are turned
down with no explanation and final votes have been cast.
   I received a brief explanation of the thought process of one CB member
right before the final vote was to be taken (and I mean right before).  It
was his opinion that he was expressing and I respect that but what was said
was pretty amazing to me.  This person's words went something like "This is
the start of a great rule but not close to being one yet.  It is not our
job to help write the rules, simply to vote on them and uphold the pattern
community".  I do not think for one second this is how the entire CB feels
and refreshed knowing this is not the case.  This simply tells me to submit
what you have and we'll make the decision.  If it's good or if it's a good
start, the CB has no obligation to help  get it there, that's the author's
responsibility.  Please understand, the proposals didn't pass and that's
OK.  Maybe next time, we can all work together to come up with proposals if
they are warranted.
   I am slightly distraught about the Advancement Proposal.  This would
have made it so much easier for everyone to fly in the class that they were
competitive in and/or felt comfortable in.  This did not change the pattern
community and did not warrant any extra work or duties, especially for the
CD.  There would not be any more trophy hunting going on with it then there
is now as most local events are attended by the same individuals and we all
know who is flying in what class for the most part.  OK, so it got turned
down but why?  What is the logic?  Honestly, that's what I want to
understand more than anything.  I definitely get the weight proposal.  I
even get the "safety" proposal to some extent.  This one, the Advancement
Proposal, I do not understand.  If there were arguments or heated
discussions within the CB for those that supported it and those that
didn't, why wouldn't the author(s) be included in the communication to help
explain the intent of the proposal so that it could be made clear?
   As far as the safety proposal is concerned, I really do get why that
shouldn't be a pattern rule but, did the proposal get passed to the AMA
Safety Committee?  If it did, great!  Why didn't we know?  I agree with
some of y'all also that sometimes it "seems" that safety procedures don't
need a rule because most of us are very careful and incorporate some safety
device.  In racing motorcycles, you have to safety wire the majority of
your bolts and nuts at all times.  Especially the oil drain plug.  Imagine
a drain plug backing out and hitting turn 6 at 120 mph and a fellow
competitor going through that.  Trust me as I've seen oil and coolant on
the track and what happens, it's ugly. I do not agree, however, that
because most people are safety conscious and have something in place, that
a rule doesn't need to be made. Imagine that case in the example above.
 The premise that most do it so it's OK is not the correct mindset.  We
wrote and rewrote that proposal to give the majority what they wanted.
 People didn't want an arming plug to be required.  Cool, we said.  Let's
make it so that the requirement is just that the plane is disarmed.  Most
loved the new proposal because it directly reflected the FAI rule and it
did not require any added equipment or weight or drilling holes in the side
of your plane.  Not only did that proposal go down in flames but the
original proposal submitted by someone other than the NSRCA Rules Committee
requiring an arming plug passed the initial vote from the CB.  How did this
happen after all the uproar?
   It seems to me that it is easy to place blame on the NSRCA but ask to
take the AMA to task is a big no-no.  We pay dues to the NSRCA and
therefore we have a voice!  I agree 100%.  But, we are also members of the
AMA and should have a voice there as well.  We do not (or so it seems).
 This is what, if anything I would like to accomplish as a volunteer of the
NSRCA; to increase visibility of our community and have wide open
communication with our members and equally important, with the AMA who
really has the ultimate say-so in every facet of this hobby.  I want to
know how to "fix it" for next time and have the true open door policy where
communication flows both ways.  One group or the other should not be
required to make the first call.  We should want to work together for the
betterment of our hobby.

Thank you for reading,
Scott


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>wrote:

> OK,  As a CB member I want to throw a few quick things out there.  First
> and foremost, Just like the NSRCA Board, we're a group of volunteers that
> love modeling and Precision Aerobatics, and we do the best we can with
> fulfilling our charter.  If there are issues, mistakes, bad choices, GOOD
> choices, they are all the result of a dedicated group TRYING to do their
> best.   There is no hidden agenda or malicious intent...ever.
>
> That said I think one of the clear disconnects is our Charter.  We are
> selected to the contest board based on our years of experience in the
> hobby, the sport, a demonstration of our understanding of the AMA and its
> rules, and an active participation and understanding in the niche within
> which we are representing.
>
> We have some obligation to preserve Pattern, as Pattern.  I.e. if the
> ENTIRE NSRCA membership voted unanimously to change the rules such that
> whom ever could fly 10 laps the fastest wins... We would have an obligation
> to vote NO, regardless of that unanimous support.  I.e go fly Pylon.
> Occasionally we are presented with rules that we collectively feel are not
> in the best interest of maintaining Pattern competition and this then comes
> into play.  This is especially true when rules are put forth that strongly
> alter the lower classes (Often championed by someone with heavy interest
> and enthusiasm, but minimal years of experience to know how these things
> manifest).
>
> We also have an obligation to the logistics of the sport.  Rules that
> place an unreasonable burden on running an event bare a much higher level
> of scrutiny prior to being passed.
>
> We have an obligation to the AMA to keep some consistency with their
> general rules, and with similar rules in other disciplines.  Safety issues
> fall squarely into this camp.  The AMA has long stated that they do not
> support legislating out stupidity, or creating burdensome rules that punish
> the masses simply to protect against carelessness (Unless of course the
> result of such error is catastrophic).
>
> Also regarding safety, if the safety issue is somewhat generic to the
> hobby, then those regulations are pushed up to the AMA safety board for
> review unless they are very specific to the individual discipline.
>
> Bottom line...  Just because the majority of the NSRCA wants it, doesn't
> mean we should be approving it.
>
> Lastly, the statement "The majority of the NSRCA" does NOT necessarily
> mean the survey results.  That is a VERY small subset of our group.  It's
> typically a subset of the vocal, or the opinionated, or both.  I can't
> speak for the entire CB, but I WILL speak for Verne (Sorry Verne) and me,
> in that we both query as many of our district members that we see or can
> solicit.  MANY times an issue that has been fired up on the list or via the
> survey gets a very different 'vote' when it's discussed in the actual
> setting of a contest, and when all the inputs are weighed (I.e. everyone
> standing there discusses it).
>
> All that said, there's no reason why we couldn't collectively write an
> assenting or dissenting opinion much in the way a court does, to at least
> convey the logic that was used to make our vote.
>
> Anyhow, the entire CB is online and our names are published.  One need but
> ask... and many do.  But we're sometimes remiss to post too much on the
> discussion boards about a proposal.  Rather most of us take a back seat to
> the discussion and simply listen.
>
> -Mark
> Mark Atwood
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President
> 5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>  |
> www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
>
> I'm not too old to remember what it was like before the NSRCA. If you
> traveled very far you could find yourself competing in an unfamiliar event.
> The NSRCA has matured since those early days and contributed greatly to
> standardized judging, rule proposal screening and national unity. YES the
> NSRCA has value well beyond the K-Factor.
>
> Yes it would be nice to get the rest of the story from the AMA contest
> board as to why safety related rules were voted down. Maybe I missed it but
> at this point I can only guess. I could probably ask directly and get a
> reply but I trust they had a valid reason.
>
> I also trust our BOD to lead the NSRCA on my behalf without having to
> explain, discuss or endlessly argue details in an open forum. Open
> discussed can be extremely time consuming with limited productivity. There
> is no making everyone happy especially if their' participation is hit and
> miss continuously requiring covering old ground.
>
> Those of us that wish to be involved in the details can get actively
> involved.
>
> Enough. On to the shop!
>
> Jim Hiller
> NSRCA 376
> .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> [mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
>
> John,
> I have never intentionally attacked anyone, either on this forum or on the
> discussions over on RCU.  I've asked questions, seeking answers.  I tend to
> be direct in my emails and they may appear to be harsh, probably comes from
> my background dealing with the military.  I have not accused anyone of
> having an agenda, nor do I think anyone on the board does.  If you or
> anyone else thinks that is what I've implied or am implying, I'm sorry.
>
> I think after seeing what you said here, seeing the complete NSRCA survey
> results, and several private emails and phone calls, that there is a
> general apathy in NSRCA which seems to have its roots in people questioning
> the relevancy of the organization.  If NSRCA is not relevant and doesn't
> provide added value to the membership, we can turn the sequences back over
> to the AMA and disband.  I'd like to see NSRCA viewed as returning far more
> in value to the membership than the few dollars they invest each year.  A
> question we all need to constantly ask ourselves is "If someone asks me why
> I should join the NSRCA, what do I tell them?"
>
> The K-Factor is a recurring theme in the survey and people I have talked
> to in terms of value to the members.  I would like to congratulate Scott
> McHarg and the rest of the K-Factor crew on the December issue of the
> K-Factor.  I everyone reading this hasn't looked at it, it has a lot of
> how-to in it.  Good job!
>
> I didn't mean to imply that the AMA competition board should not have been
> much more transparent during the rules proposal process.  They should have
> been, and that communication is one thing I'd work on to improve if
> elected.  I am an advocate of follow-up, follow-up, follow-up.  And if we
> are going to ask others to be transparent to us, then we need to walk the
> talk.
>
> Again, sorry if I offended anyone.  I was asking questions that I didn't
> see anyone else asking, and I wanted to know the answers.  I hope the
> membership will see this continuing discussion as constructive, and offer
> their thoughts.
> Jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net<mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
> [quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe
> Transparency. I think the spilled milk has been discussed enough, from the
> AMA rules change proposal process by the board, to the bylaws, to the
> aborted officer election.
> [/quote]
>
>
> I certainly agree that there were processes that could have been improved
> relative to the bylaw changes and officer election. However to call them
> aborted and imply in various other posts that the board has a hidden agenda
> is over the top. Clearly the board could have and should have done a better
> job on the elections and, for that matter, the treasurer's audit but there
> was no intent to hoodwink or put one over on the membership. We are nothing
> but a bunch of volunteers with a love of pattern. When the call went out
> two years ago, noone else stood up and said "I want to run for office".
> Various coercions were applied to get Ed Alt to run for President and Scott
> McHarg to run for Secretary.I will admit to calling Derek and asking if
> they had found a Treasurer in mid-December. When he said yes, I thanked him
> and was about to hang up when he said "you". Later that year Ed Alt
> resigned due to the press of work and Jim Quinn who was then VP reluctantly
> assumed the reins of president. Good choice or not, there was noone else
> champing at the bit to take the job and the board gratefully accepted Jim
> as president. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down to get on the board
> at that time or, for that matter, now. Kind of wonder where all the current
> contrarians were then. Jon, I guess you were still recovering from your
> retirement so that excuses you but there are plenty of others making
> derogatory comments about the actions of the current board. Where are you
> when we need help? Apparently looking the other way.  Right now John Bruml
> has been trying to get out of being the Advertising Manager almost as long
> as I’ve been on the board. Where are those clamoring to help out?
> Apparently using their energies to bash those who did throw their hat in.
>
>
> LOWE>>Oh, and about the Contest Board.  Their process is well documented
> by the AMA and follows a strict time table.  We all had the opportunity to
> provide inputs and cross proposals after the initial vote.  We also had the
> opportunity to talk to the CB members, and I did talk to a couple of them.
>  The CB members are mostly active members of the pattern community, are
> well known, and are charted by the AMA, not the NSRCA, to look at rules
> proposals to benefit all AMA participants, not just NSRCA members. Problems
> with the NSRCA proposals were hashed out here, and the submitters had the
> opportunity to fix issues during the cross proposal process.  How much
> follow-up contact did the NSRCA board initiate with the CB during the
> process?  Were any cross proposals submitted?<<LOWE
>
> Jon, this seems to have provided the impetus for your presidential
> campaign. I can only say that the NSRCA Rules committee operated openly, if
> with a late start, and solicited input from the membership on RCU and this
> list(and outside the membership as well), ran a survey, modified proposals
> to meet objections and finally submitted proposals to the contest board.
> More open you cannot get. I find it fascinating that to you, the NSRCA
> board must be open and direct with its membership(as it should) but when
> dealing with the contest board we are expected to dig, pry and canvas the
> board members in an effort to find out how our proposals are doing and what
> objections might have been raised. Why is the same openness not required in
> both cases in your mind?? While it is clear in the published process that
> cross-proposals could be submitted within a window, we had no way of
> knowing which or what part of our proposals were causing difficulty. There
> was no contact initiated by the contest board. Adding insult to injury,
> there was no “report out” published, listing the pro and con votes by
> district and any  discussed objections. As I have said before, I have no
> more idea what it takes to get a proposal passed through the CB then I did
> a year ago before the NSRCA rules committee formed. How do you explain the
> dichotomy between your views of the contest board and the NSRCA board?
>
> Relative to the Nats, it is clear to everyone on the board that the Nats
> are in the control of the AMA which has been true ever since NPAC went
> away. We, the board, present a candidate to the AMA, who has always been
> accepted. After that we lose any control. Although since I’ve been on the
> board, there have been various problems at the Nats which many blame on the
> NSRCA not the AMA. Arch has been good about keeping us in the loop but he
> makes it clear who he reports to.  He and previous EDs and the AMA staff
> have been great about providing logistic support for the banquet, ice cream
> social, etc. However there is no question about the ED having two bosses,
> AMA is it. The NSRCA is responsible for using the funds collected by the
> AMA on our behalf to purchase the necessary scoring equipment and paying
> the volunteer staff what we can. This is never enough to even cover their
> expenses at the Nats much less travel.
>
> John Gayer
> NSRCA Treasurer
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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/20121212/fb64b516/attachment.html>