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

Thu Dec 13 09:09:11 AKST 2012

So even if there had been six arming plugs installed (in series, of course)
none of them would have gotten pulled as the pilot and caller stood right
next to the “armed” airplane debriefing the flight . . .

Sent from Windows Mail

 *From:* Ronald Van Putte <vanputter at gmail.com>
*Sent:* ‎December‎ ‎13‎, ‎2012 ‎10‎:‎42‎ ‎AM
*To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

Sorry, that's not true.  Both the pilot and the coach were standing next to
the airplane, talking about the previous flight when the pilot
absentmindedly turned off his transmitter.

Ron Van Putte

On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Keith Hoard wrote:

If I recall the story correctly, the offending aircraft was left unattended
after landing while the pilot “debriefed” with the judges.  If there was
nobody to physically secure that airplane, then there would have been
nobody to pull the arming plug either.

Unless the arming plug had a “self-ejection after landing” feature, it
would have still been installed in the airplane and it STILL would have
gone to full power into the pits when the Tx was turned off.

Sent from Windows Mail

*From:* John Fuqua <johnfuqua at embarqmail.com>
*Sent:* ‎December‎ ‎13‎, ‎2012 ‎9‎:‎49‎ ‎AM
*To:* General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
*Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board - Was Executive Board voting

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/>

****

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 <440.684.3101%20x102>>  |
 Fax: 440.684.3102<tel:440.684.3102 <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****

****

** **

-- 
*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****

_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20121213/30b5cbd6/attachment.html>