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

Thu Dec 13 06:48:50 AKST 2012

Well I was the victim of a runaway electric which trashed my plane and
barely missed slicing up people in the pit.   The operator HAD set Fail
Safe.   Somewhere along the way it got changed and when he turned off the Tx
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Randy Forbus
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:59 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

With all the fancy smancy computer radios out there fail safe seems to be
the logical way to prevent a runaway.

  _____  

From: rforbus at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:50:09 +0000
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

Well I personally havent seen a runaway electric plane and I know some have
and the out come wasnt good, but like Mark said an arming plug doesnt give
100% safety, common sense has to prevail.  Ive never seen a glow motor come
back to life with no glow driver connected either, but I know that happens
too.

  _____  

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:38:03 -0600
From: scmcharg at gmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

Mark and John, 

   First of all, I personally want to thank you for stepping up to the fire
blaster and communicating with us.  Believe me, I know what it feels like.
Mark, after all of the communication and survey (flawed as it was in some
eyes), it was clear that no one wanted the arming plug but agreed with the
idea behind the proposal.  That's why the proposed one was changed to mirror
the FAI rule.  That one didn't even make the preliminary vote and the one we
requested be trashed was accepted.  Your arguments also are the same as
others and the reason why we changed it.  I also understand your point about
be specific and generic at the same time but I do not believe that
everything has to have a penalty.  If it ain't right, just make it so and be
done with it.  If a competitor doesn't disarm the plane, ask him to do so.
You don't have to spank the person with a penalty every single time.

  Like John Gayer said concerning Telemetry, there is no penalty in the
current rules which y'all approved so why now does there have to be one in
order to get it passed.  Likewise, if this was the whole problem to this
proposal or any of them, why didn't y'all just let us know so we could fix
it?  John Fuqua says that AMA doesn't want to blanket the entire AMA
community with a rule for electrics concerning safety and wants the SIGs to
do it yet ya'll who are OUR rule makers for our SIG say it's not your
responsibility.  This is certainly an issue.

  This type of communication that we are having right here is extremely
healthy and, in my opinion, the exact conversations that should have been
happening during the process instead of after.  Again, I appreciate you and
John taking the time to hash this out.  For me, my frustrations are subsided
knowing we can talk about this.  Thank you for that.

   On a tangent, I would like everyone to pay close attention to the Kfactor
this year.  Mark Atwood is writing a monthly column for the Kfactor.  Mark
is the Team Manager for our Team USA F3A World Team.  I think you'll like
what he's doing as each month, he is giving a bio of each competitor.
Things will progress from there.  I am truly looking forward to this column.
Sorry to stray but I think it's important to realize how much he does for
our hobby as well as put his feet to the coals.  :)

Scott

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
wrote:

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/>
<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/><http://www.parago
n-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 lis
ts.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 para
gon-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.atwo
od at paragon-inc.com<mailto:mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com><mailto:mark.atwood at pa
ragon-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/><http://www.paragon-inc.com/><http://www.parag
on-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 lis
ts.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-
discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.ns
rca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discus
sion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bou
nces 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><ma
ilto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.ns
rca.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 comca
st.net><mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>>
To: General pattern discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><m
ailto: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.n
srca.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><ma
ilto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.ns
rca.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><ma
ilto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.ns
rca.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><ma
ilto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg>
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><ma
ilto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org><mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.o
rg>
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

-- 
Scott A. McHarg
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure

_______________________________________________ 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121213/49dae97b/attachment.html>