[NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.

[John Gayer]

Jon,

Relative to the scheduling of the new sequences, there is a document 
that addresses the timeline for the sequence committee. This document is 
not on the website, at least not in the logical place under sequence 
development. Here is the section about the schedule. This document was 
generated in 2012 to separate the functions of the committee from the 
sequence development guide which gets some updates every cycle.

4 Suggested Sequence Submittal Process
The following is the recommended timeline for the development and 
submission of new sequences. Sequence
development should always start in two years prior to when the sequence 
is to be replaced. For example, if the
Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in 2015 (X) then 
work on the development of a new
sequence should start in 2013 (X – 2). What follows is a timeline 
showing the activity (task) and the month the
activity should start:
TASK TIMELINE
Assign and approve Committee Chairperson October - year X – 2
Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership October – year X - 2
BoD approves Committee Membership November – year X - 2
Establish development schedule December – year X - 2
Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes December – year 
X - 2
Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test January through 
March – year X - 1
Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor April through May – 
year X - 1
Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments June through 
August – year X - 1
Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval October– year X - 1
Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor November – year X -1
New sequences in use January – year X

There is no question about the requirement for publishing the proposed 
sequences. It was supposed to happen the beginning of April. From your 
email it appears that neither you or Joe were aware of  the publication 
requirement or the dates involved. I know you addressed the lack of 
continuity between boards in your ppost but I believe the Committee had 
this document and should have shared it with the board. Certainly all 
past Committee members had a copy.

There is another section in this document that addresses the makeup of 
the committee and the oversight function of the board.

2.3 Membership
There should be at least six Committee members excluding the Chairperson 
and should, if possible, contain at
least one member who is currently competing in each of the AMA classes. 
There should be representation from
as many NSRCA districts as possible on the committee. Non pilots and non 
NSRCA members may be
committee members, provided that their qualifications meet the approval 
of the Chairperson and the BoD. The
Committee shall contain at least one current member of the BoD. All 
members of the Committee are voting
members.

2.5.1 Standard Committee Procedures
• The NSRCA President shall be the primary point of contact for 
communications between the
Committee Chairperson and the Board on all matters of directive nature, 
and for deliverables from
the Committee.
• The Chairperson will select members for his/her committee and propose 
a team to the BoD.
• The BoD will review the Committee for national (District) balance and 
representation across
Intermediate through Masters Classes and, if necessary, provide 
recommendations on the
Committee members to the Chairperson. The BoD will then vote to accept 
or reject the proposed
Committee members.
• The Chairperson and Committee members agree to work as a team and 
reach a consensus on the
Committee’s proposals. They agree to support the Committee’s proposal 
and not submit separate
proposals on these sequences to the BoD.
• The Committee shall perform their tasks within the schedule of 
milestones as defined by the BoD.
• The Committee will produce proposed changes to sequences based on 
input from the membership
and their experience. The sequences will be published in the K Factor 
and on the NSRCA website
for review.
• The Committee will coordinate with the Rules/Judging Committee 
Chairperson to produce the
final proposals, with supporting rationale, to be approved by the BoD.
• Sequences for Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Masters Class will 
be developed for
presentation to and review by the precision aerobatics community on the 
NSRCA website. New
sequences may not necessarily be presented for all classes.

I have cherry-picked the pertinent sections from the document but have 
also attached the complete document.  It's pretty clear that the 
directives contained here were not followed. The current committee 
makeup does not conform to the document in terms of consensus,  
geographical distribution, number of members or the requirement for a 
current board member.

On another subject, It is my understanding from when I was on the board 
that the NSRCA board proposes the ED to the AMA. Once that is done, the 
ED responsibility  is to the AMA not the NSRCA. At that point, the NSRCA 
no longer has any authority over the ED. If that is still the case, how 
is the /board/ creating Co-EDs or changing the ED? And directing change 
to the finals from the originally published setup when this is solely up 
to the ED? It is very late to be running surveys and reevaluating 
procedures with the start barely a month away. Even the survey itself 
seems to be problematic. I've attended four of the last six Nats, year 
before last in Masters but didn't qualify for the survey?

Also we are finding out that the F3A finals have been changed back to 
the normal format. We find this out because Jon had a long conversation 
with Joe and posted on the list? I can't find anything on the website 
about the Co-CD change, the survey, the change to the F3A final or 
what's going on with the sequence committee, committee members or 
committee members that have resigned and been replaced. The Masters 
finals sequence that was developed without establishing any sequence 
guidelines( at least not that were  published) or buyin from the board 
is a case in point of the lack of transparency of the current committee.

John Gayer

On 6/18/2017 6:25 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Joe and I had a LONG conversation Saturday about the NATS, sequences, 
> and NSRCA in general.  This email is what I heard based on that 
> conversation and he knows I'm writing this. I've known Joe for a 
> number of years, and we are good friends, so we had a very frank 
> discussion. I don't think I swallowed any koolade, but you be the judge.
>
> First though, I am as guilty as anyone in reacting to stuff on this 
> discussion list, without picking up the phone or calling people 
> directly. No excuse, but modern media at work. I should know, as a 
> past president of NSRCA, how hard it can be to get to ground truth 
> sometimes, and to make sure accurate info is distributed. For that, I 
> apologize.
>
> One thing I didn't realize, was that until yesterday, Joe was not on 
> this discussion list. He's primarily used the NSRCA Facebook page. 
> He's catching up now with all of the discussions here over the past 
> couple of weeks.
>
> You've probably seen by now the letter on Mike Harrison and Al Glenn 
> being co-EDs for the NATS. Joe realizes that decision and 
> clarification had not been made either to them, the NSRCA BoD, or the 
> membership, and it wasn't documented on the NSRCA website. Joe and the 
> BoD are working on remedies to make sure oversights like that don't 
> happen again. The BoD meeting was a couple of nights ago, and it was 
> clarified then, and put out to the membership.
>
> The changes to the format of the NATS was also discussed. The final 
> format is the EDs call, as long as it is by the rule book. But as I 
> reminded Joe, the finals for Masters was eliminated a couple of years 
> ago to great hue and cry when it was unnecessary to use the matrix 
> system, and was reinstated the following year. So tread carefully. He 
> pointed out that this year's NATS is trying something that hasn't been 
> done in years, and that some changes happen as a result. This should 
> have been better communicated to the membership. The survey that went 
> out yesterday was to affected entrants to last year's and this year's 
> NATS.  However, if the changes to the finals are affecting your 
> decision on whether or not to enter the NATS, I urge you to contact 
> Joe. His email and phone number are in the back of any KFactor. He did 
> say that so far the survey is about 80% for the shortened Masters 
> finals. I don't know though how many responses he's received. 
> Incidentally, FAI has reverted to a 2-F, 2- unknown finals format, 
> according to Joe.
>
> He realizes that NSRCA and the membership is in a time crunch for 
> vetting and getting approval for the new AMA sequences for next year. 
> The BoD first saw them a few hours before we did, and it became clear 
> during the BoD meeting that they needed a separate meeting to discuss 
> and vet them. Significant discussion centered around the proposal for 
> a Master's class finals. That isn't contemplated in the Sequence 
> guide, and there hasn't been any decision on putting that before the 
> membership or not.  According to Joe, neither he, nor other members of 
> the BoD knew that a finals sequence would be proposed, total surprise. 
> Obviously, to get feedback to make necessary changes, get approval 
> from the membership, final approval by the BoD and to publish all of 
> the new sequences by years end is going to be tough. Joe clearly 
> understands that challenge.  In addition, he said he recalls no 
> discussion one way or the other during the BoD meeting about 
> distributing what they got from the sequence committee to the general 
> membership. I told him I felt that the sooner they get feedback the 
> better, and he agreed. Constructive feedback to Joe or your District 
> VP is encouraged. I know there have been some personal issues that 
> resulted from the distribution of the sequences, and Joe and others 
> are working to correct those problems. I hope they can be resolved 
> also. Those involved will know what I'm talking about.
>
> It still is not clear to me, and I think Joe, why the sequences we're 
> developed in such secrecy.  This definitely didn't help the current 
> controversy. I told Joe that drafts should have been out months ago 
> for comment. He agreed that this needs to be the process going 
> forward, and the procedure guide for developing the sequences may need 
> clarification for timelines and transparency.
>
> One of the things I faced, and Joe is facing, is loss of corporate 
> knowledge anytime there is new leadership in charge. This is 
> especially true of volunteer organizations with no central office. I 
> have some things I think can help, and I will make sure Joe gets them. 
> If you have old files or other information you think might benefit him 
> or the BoD, please contact him.
>
> I emphasized to Joe the need for fast communication on hot topics, 
> even to say they're working on it, and will get back to us. He gets 
> it, and I think being on this list he will get and can react to the 
> hot issues of the moment.
>
> Do I agree with everything Joe said and the BoDs actions? Of course 
> not; I'd be surprised if I did. Pattern fliers are, if nothing else, 
> opinionated SOB's. Can they do better, especially with communication? 
> Surely, and I think Joe gets that. And I'm going to try to improve my 
> communication with Joe and my DVP, Larry Kauffman, before I express 
> displeasure here.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170618/0511229c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NSRCA_Pattern_Sequence_Development_Committee_Charter_Rev1p1_10-01-12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56746 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170618/0511229c/attachment.pdf>