[NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
Scott McHarg
scmcharg at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 05:24:11 AKST 2012
Randy,
Your opinion counts the most just like every other pattern flier. Your
point was the same as a lot of others and why the proposal was changed to
mirror the FAI rule. The FAI rule merely requires you to disarm your plane
immediately after landing and clear of the runway. That proposal didn't
even make the preliminary vote.
Scott
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Randy Forbus <rforbus at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I reallly dont want to put a hole in my plane for an arming plug, why
> cant the rule change that you cant install the battteries untill you are in
> the ready box ready to go, just my opinion and I know my opinion doesnt
> count for very much.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:06:38 -0800
> From: humptybump at sbcglobal.net
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
>
> To all contest board members...I have a challenge dor you!
>
> But first thanks for your service!
>
> Second....The AMA publishes your name and your address only. This means
> that I may contact CB members by writing you a letter, or showing up at
> their house. I correpsonded with Greg Hahn and another CB member a couple
> of years ago regarding this and have seen no progress. The AMA could
> easily setup an AMA e-mail address for you guys or even better, a contact
> form on the website that forward to you guys when properly filled out. If
> I were a CB member, I would very much prefer an e-mail be published to the
> internet rather than my home address!...You can bet that no AMA employee
> wants their home address publicised...
>
> It seems that this type of change may require the CB members to champion
> it to the AMA...
>
> Thanks for reading...Richard Lewis
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> *To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Thu, December 13, 2012 7:36:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board
> voting
>
> I want to be clear that I'm speaking for my view, not neccessarily the
> entire CB (though I know of at least a few that share my view). No one
> objects to the idea of better safety. What's objectionable to many, is
> making a rule that will either be unenforced, unevenly enforced, or
> punitively enforced. The idea of being able to see a visible disconnection
> from the batteries (and no, an arming plug does not provide that) at all
> times would clearly fall into that camp. The first person at the nats that
> sets his canopy on his plane to prevent it from blowing away and IS
> disqualified...or ISN'T disqualified...creates a problem. If we don't
> prevent them from flying, then there's no point in having the rule. If we
> do prevent them from flying, we've really broken the intent. And I
> completely understand that there should be some common sense in all of
> this. But our group isn't so good about common sense when we start picking
> apart the letter of the rule in a protest. Just ask any former Nats CD.
>
> The idea of great safety procedures and habits should more likely be
> outlined as guidelines, strong recommendations, peer pressure to comply,
> etc. That, or we need a more cleanly crafted rule that doesn't get someone
> disqualified for covering their airplane with a white (opague) cloth to
> keep it cool in the summer, thereby preventing me from seeing if there are
> connected batteries to the motor.
>
>
> 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 13, 2012, at 12:28 AM, John Gayer wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> on telemetry you mean a simple statement like this in our proposal:
> Any form of automatic flight control loop that utilizes aircraft flight
> parameter feedback whether onboard the model or through the transmitter is
> prohibited. Telemetry or feedback mechanisms intended for use as safety
> functions may not be used to create an unfair advantage over other
> competitors.
> Not sure how you can find loopholes in that second statement.
> There were no enforcement penalties listed in the original equipment rule
> either. We were proposing only to clarify what telemetry could be allowed
> from a safety POV. As it stands without revision, everyone who walks to the
> line with equipment that downloads and monitors/alarms on airborne battery
> voltage is in violation of the rule. Fortunately, there doesn't appear to a
> penalty for that in the current rule.
>
> The impression I am getting from both you and John is that the CB tries to
> find reasons to reject proposals on technicalities rather than embrace the
> intent of a proposal and find ways using their experience with the rules
> and communications with the proposers to make the proposals work. Of course
> if the intent is rejected as it appears it was with the weight proposal,
> then a rejection is clear and easily understood.
>
> I'm a bit confused by what you are saying about the safety rules. Most
> radios these days support failsafe. The rule proposed does not apply if
> there is no failsafe available. Size of plane is irrelevant if the radio
> supports the function. I have also seen many smaller aircraft with arming
> plugs as well. I would have to say that in this case, size does not matter.
>
> About the formal statement writing, we have two CB members who care enough
> to respond here. Leaning forward like that is often taken as volunteering.
> John
> If anyone wants to reference the proposals submitted, they can be found at:
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/events/ruleproposals/rcaerobatics.aspx
>
> On 12/12/2012 9:20 PM, Atwood, Mark wrote:
>
> I'll add a touch more specific to a few of these.
>
> Telemetry... Consensus was overwhelming that we need a SIMPLE rule, NOT a
> technical one. DON'T CHEAT. Ok, sounds too ambiguous, but it's really
> not. We all felt strongly (and came up with a several ways to cheat the
> details of the proposed rule) that we need a rule based on intent, not on
> technical specifics otherwise we'll be chasing our tail as the technology
> advances. Something that simply says telemetry may not be used to aid the
> pilot in piloting the aircraft.
>
> To John's point, any proposal that doesn't outline the penalty for
> breaking the rule is almost immediately abandoned. Enforcement has to be
> both clear, and reasonable from a logistical perspective.
>
> Lastly, regarding the safety rules... we're not in a position to assume
> that only 2 meter full blown pattern ships are the only planes competing
> unless we plan to make that a rule too. So any rules have to apply to
> anything that fits in the 2 meter box and weighs less than 5Kgs. The one
> proposal stated specifically that there had to be a visible break in the
> connection from the battery. That requires Canopies to be left off the
> aircraft (or Clear Canopies) at all times. Not practical. Those were
> just some of the easy reasons to vote no...there were other considerations
> as well that weighed against it.
>
> I like the idea of a formal "opinion" statement from the majority. Not
> sure who's burdened with writing it though.
>
>
> 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><mailto:
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com> |
> www.paragon-inc.com<http://www.paragon-inc.com/><
> http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 7:29 PM, John Fuqua wrote:
>
> Maybe I can offer some insight.
>
> If a proposal says do something then there needs to be a penalty or clear
> result that the CD can enforce. For example both safety proposal had no
> penalty/result if not complied with. Also was concern that although there
> may be a visible plug that does not ensure that the system is really
> disconnected. There was concern about adding responsibility on the CD
> who may not be electric smart. There is always concern that opened ended
> rules create confusion. If you will remember the last cycle a lot of work
> went into defining specific downgrades where to fore no penalty was
> assigned.
>
> I did, in fact, contact the AMA Tech Director twice on the safety issues.
> AMA has taken the position that they do not want to make a blanket rule for
> all electric activity preferring to leave that to the SIGs to implement for
> their specific circumstances.
>
> On the telemetry issue there was a consensus that we do not have the
> technical means to validate that TM is being used correctly. TM has great
> potential for misuse. How does one enforce only battery monitoring for
> instance. I know that the vast majority of folks do not cheat on the
> rules but I know for a fact that it has happened. TM will come up
> again. Newer radios have it so it will be a fact of life. Have no idea
> where we are headed.
>
> Weight is always contentious but we had just implemented a weight change
> the last cycle. I thinks the consensus was that some experience with the
> current rule was warranted.
>
> Advancement is also a contentious issue. But I guess the majority felt
> that this proposal was no better than what exists.
>
> We did have an initial vote and 3 failed. Then we had a cross proposals
> phase and then a final vote. I would be happy to provide all vote results
> to NSRCA along with why they failed (assuming I get that insight) and would
> have done so this time if requested. My bad for not being more pro-active
> but having done this for a long time with never a request I guess I did not
> see this coming. AMA does post the results but admittedly they are not
> always timely.
>
> John Fuqua
>
> One last thought. Board members rarely get feedback on proposals. A lot
> of the time we just have to do what our experiences tell is the right thing
> to do for our sport.
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> 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 Scott McHarg
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting
>
> 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 cas
> t.
> 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 th
> at it c
> ould 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 majo
> rity wh
> at 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
> <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com><mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com><mailto:
> 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<tel:440.684.3101%20x102> | Fax: 440.684.3102
> <tel:440.684.3102>
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:
> mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com>> | www.paragon-inc.com<
> http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.paragon-inc.com><
> http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://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><mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>> [mailto:
> 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><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> ><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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><mailto:
> jgghome at comcast.net><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net><mailto:
> jgghome at comcast.net<mailto: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><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> ><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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 presid
> ent. Go
> od 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 cont
> est boa
> rd. 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
> ><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> ><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> ><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> --
> Scott A. McHarg
> Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> ><mailto: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<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
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20121213/164d1419/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list