[NSRCA-discussion] Change of subject

Sun Jul 9 06:06:06 AKDT 2017

My hillbilly English is kicking in today

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Randy Forbus via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Curt Oberg; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Change of subject

I wood to Curt, be nice to know when we start

________________________________
From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Curt Oberg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 3:46 AM
To: 'Joe Walker'; 'General pattern discussion'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Change of subject

Is there any reason why the NAT's site layout for the different classes hasn't been released? I would imagine that planning has already taken place and some of us would like to know.

1.  Is Intermediate and Advanced classes sharing a site like at Munci in the past?  If so, will Advance fly in the morning or afternoon session?

2.  I understand that there will be 3 sites setup, one each on the north, mid, and south taxiway E/W connectors between the N/S taxiway and the active runway.  I hear that the flight direction will be E/W with the flyers facing south.  Is this info accurate and if so, which classes will occupy each of the 3 sites?

3.  Where and when will be courtesy weigh in be setup?

Mike's NAT's News letter #5 said that we would receive a mailing with all this info  but I haven't received anything but a letter from the AMA with the NAT's flyer in it.  Some of us older codgers would appreciate having this info so we basically know where we will be going on base before we get there.  TIA.

Curt Oberg

________________________________

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Walker via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 8:18 PM
To: Chuck Hochhalter; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed masters sequence thoughts

Now that I’ve learned the discussion list lingo… +1 Chuck!

and thanks Jon.  We agree on stuff too!  Yeah!

Joe

On Jul 8, 2017, at 8:57 PM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

This is all true but in my time of DVP not one meeting was closed door. If you want to be included, and correct me if I am wrong, ask the dvo to give you the call in info for the next meeting and speak your peace on any topic at the appropriate time, but when the meeting turns to the agenda that does not include public input be respectful and let the meeting commence and be a silent observer.

Chuck

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Droid

On Jul 8, 2017 7:46 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Tom,
I will back Joe up on this one. The meetings tend to be long and dull, with brief periods of excitement when a controversial topic came up (like sequences). A lot of the meetings were taken up by routine VP reports, treasurer reports, and yes, the K-Factor, especially when we decided to go digital, plus change publishers for cost savings. We also had to mend fences between NSRCA and the AMA Contest board, as communication had completely broken down on rules proposals. To be honest, that took a lot of arm twisting, and we had some very frank and sometimes heated discussions, but we came to an amicable resolution. Yes, I tried to keep that issue out of the limelight as there were hurt feelings on both sides, and we needed to figure out a path ahead.

When I was Pres, we would invite in people to BoD meetings like the Nats ED, organizers for the F3P team trials,, the World Champs Team manager, webmaster, special committee's, etc. Any of them can tell you how dull the meetings were, as most bailed out of the call as soon as they could!   Part of the problem is virtually all of the BoD meetings are conference calls, and getting a reliable conference call with so many people can be problematic. Further, we couldn't start before 9PM eastern, or 6 Pacific because of work schedules. I know Joe tries to hold meetings to an agenda, and so did I. He tries to wrap things up in an hour, whereas my meetings often went for 2, as we were trying to regain compliance with mandatory NSRCA and AMA requirements (not always successfully). Scott McHarg was a big help in making timely meeting minutes, and the invaluable Book of Motions, so we had a ready record of the final decisions made by motions. Before, we had to go back thru old minutes and try to find motions buried within. Often, "everybody knew" something had been voted on, but we had no real record.

There used to be a BoD meeting at the Nats, but at some Nats very few officers could attend, so a meeting was pointless. The one year we did have one, everyone was so burned out at the end of a day of flying, that trying to do anything meaningful was tough. Some members came to that meeting, and I attended one before I became President.  I advised my successor Jon Carter, to not bother having one, but instead have an informal get together of any available officers. His second year, he had a general membership meeting, a good idea. I believe Joe intends to continue that.

We never tried to exclude anyone from BoD meetings, but encouraged people to work thru their DVPs where possible. We tried to keep people abreast of issues thru the KFactor and this list. Joe is making every effort to do the same.

Jon

________________________________

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Thanks Tom!

It's not exclusionary. It's quite dull actually. The only reason it isn't a free for all is simply to respect everyone's time. The minutes are posted, even faster now so there is no mystery to anything. The budget reports are included. The topics of discussion are brought up by the DVP's. Every member has complete availability to bring up any topic they want to their DVP or any other member of the board. If there is a topic that you feel needs to be heard by the board or the entire membership, ask and you can be a guest at the meeting.

Your point about not following the rules is very well taken because the rules aren't clearly accessible. As new people come into a position, they just start doing the best they can. I've made it my personal mission to collect and align all information in its various forms to be cleaned up, updated, and posted to the website in a logical and accessible location for everyone to see anything they want at any time. There is no restriction on information.

What specifically is a concern to you Tom?  Just so I'm clear, I'm not asking what your impression of other people's options are, I'm asking for you specifically.

Hope this is helpful.

Joe walker,

NSRCA President

On Jul 8, 2017, at 5:42 PM, Tom Stennis via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Joe,

I have been listening to all the conversation on the discussion and it appears that the rules have always not been adhered to. Now do I understand That the board of directors are meeting in closed secession and the membership is not allowed to attend. This is totally unacceptable what does the board have to hide. You are destroying the organization with this this controlled information. I was an member of NSRCA when it was formed and understand that this type of action is why it is declining. No one has any confidence in the leadership.

Tom Stennis

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:

Thanks, Joe, but first, go out flying and have some fun - lol

Verne Koester

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net<mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net>> wrote:

Transparency indeed!  That’s an easy fix.  On it and I’ll have those posted.

Oh, the easy part!  LOL.  The BoD has a meeting on Wednesday night and I’ve added the survey to the agenda to talk about.  Survey data is always good information and I’m completely on board with gathering up all the information to help guide the decision making process.

Thanks Verne!

Joe

On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:12 PM, Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com<mailto:verne at mi.rr.com>> wrote:

First, go back and edit page 2 of the Sequence Development Guideline to describe all changes made from the original document to date. I think the buzzword for that is transparency.

The survey part is easy. Ask the members what type of maneuvers they think should be at each level without putting a spin or sales pitch into the question and then act accordingly.  You should also be asking questions about rules proposals the NSRCA intends to submit to the AMA Contest Board. Lacking a survey to back up the proposal, it doesn't carry any more or less weight than any other submitted proposal.

I've known you for a long time and consider you a friend. I have no doubt your intentions are good. My decision to quit the NSRCA happened before you became President. You just happened to walk in as I was walking out.

I'm hearing a lot of dissension out on the Contest trail. Most of it centers around the schedules, past and proposed. Masters looks like FAI, Advanced looks like Masters, and Intermediate is basically just screwed in the process.

FAI has turned into an elite, professional class that most pattern pilots don't and won't have the time or skill to participate in. Masters was not categorized as a "stepping stone" to FAI when I was on the Sequence Committee, it was a destination class. I suspect that's part of the invisible adjustments I referenced on page 2 of the Sequence Development Guide.

If I were taking the survey, I'd tell you to take the integrated rollers and no hesitation reverse rolls out of Masters, and recognize that Advanced has more than enough on their plate learning to do a slow and 4 point roll, snap and spin in their schedule. Reclassifying a Figure M with Quarter Rolls as a K4 when it's always been a K5 and then throwing that in the mix for someone moving up from Intermediate is just outrageous. It was also the final straw that sent me out the door.

Verne Koester

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Joe Walker <vellum2 at bellsouth.net<mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net>> wrote:

I completely understand that perspective Verne.  And I value that input.

That said, part of the reason I decided to jump into the fire was to help turn things around.  I personally reached out to folks in D2 before throwing my hat into the ring and gained a lot of insight on some of the underlying concerns and it was a big contributor to me offering to change things.  D2 has been doing a lot of work to help improve the organization and it’s very much appreciated.  D4 was not chastised by “the Board”.  We did not leave a conversation that was on the table with clear direction on how to proceed and folks had different understandings.  We are working hard to ensure that doesn’t happen anymore by being clear with language and ensure we have all the information before making a decision on any topic.  You’ll see that topic of clear communication and gathering all the information repeated over and over again, the sequence proposals bringing it to light once again.  You’ll notice that a big part of changing the guide this time is focused on clarification of language and terminology, rather than changing the intent.

Regarding the survey of members, what would bring you back into the organization Verne?  What are the right questions do you feel need to be asked?  I’ll never have a problem asking for people’s thoughts.  My sole (soul? ;-) ) request is to keep the feedback focused on information and specifics.  That’s the only way to run an organization, right?

Joe

On Jul 8, 2017, at 1:25 PM, Verne Koester <verne at mi.rr.com<mailto:verne at mi.rr.com>> wrote:

Joe,

If it appears that I’m skeptical, you’re correct, I am.

You very nearly lost the NSRCA D4 VP after he was chastised for seeking input from the members he represents before the schedules were officially made public.

A few years ago, the NSRCA D2 resigned after his input within the Board was routinely ignored because he wasn’t part of the “inner circle”. The NSRCA lost nearly everyone from D2 in the process and they started their own organization called the Northeast Pattern Association. Nobody from the NSRCA even bothered to contact anyone from D2 to find out why. In fairness to you, you weren’t the President at that time.

There’s been much mention of the Sequence Development Guidelines. Please look at Page 2 of that document. Numerous changes were made to it during the last administration which are properly noted and dated. However, there’s zero mention of what the changes actually were. So basically. It’s change the Sequence Development Guide it to whatever the Sequence Committee decides to do and then point to the guide as justification for what’s proposed. Pretty much turns it into a useless document.

The time for a survey of NSRCA members is long overdue. Do that, ask the right questions, post the results, and then the request is reasonable.

Verne Koester

From: J [mailto:vellum2 at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 12:41 PM
To: Verne Koester; General pattern discussion
Cc: Vicente Bortone
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed masters sequence thoughts

Thanks for chiming in Verne. Your perspective is very much appreciated.

As a point of clarification, there is much listening going on. The perception that the board is acting devoid of any input is incorrect. The BoD's main responsibility is to ensure compliance. There were some issues that were out of compliance that have since been corrected and the result of the direction was a revised sequence that has now been posted for member comment. We are in that process now and it's our job to filter through those comments and consolidate that information to give back to the sequence committee for revisions.

There has been much work in pulling this current proposal together that has included a lot of member input. And that process continues now. Let's all give the process a chance to work. Is that an unreasonable request?

Best,

Joe Walker,

NSRCA President

On Jul 8, 2017, at 11:21 AM, Verne Koester via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170709/61fc4b69/attachment.html>