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

[Frackowiak Tony]

Make it 2 to 2. My middle name is John. I have been trying to get the charter from my current DVP for 2 weeks. No luck.

Anthony John Frackowiak


On Jun 18, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:

> When I said it is supposed to be in the charter, the development guide says "current version" of the charter. I don't know what the current version is or what it contains. You are correct in that it doesn't appear to be on the website. Joe addressed that sort of issue in his email here.
> 
> And it's two against one on the correct spelling of Jon!
> 
> Jon (no "h")
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 18, 2017 John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Jon, I wasn't addressing the presidential passing of the baton and I know the difference between Jon and Jon, even if neither know how to spell your name.
> 
> The timeline is not supposed to be in the charter, it is in the charter. The switchover to FAI scheduling has nothing to do with it as the timeline I posted from the charter document is in terms of working back from the delivery date, not absolute years.  Also, the committee chair was supposed to be determined last October and the members set in November when the president was Jon Carter. I don't know when that actually happened but Joe should have received a full sequence committee including members when he took over. I don't know that it actually happened on schedule.  There used to be a calendar which Scott McHarg kept to remind the board of various due dates. In fact you, Jon Lowe, might have started that because the board historically wasn't staying on top of stuff.
> 
> As far as the website is concerned, it does take more than a couple days to get it updated.  I see nothing on the NSRCA facebook page on any of the subjects I listed. The Sequence committee stuff is six months behind. Where are we supposed to look for current info?
> 
> John
> 
> On 6/18/2017 12:53 PM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussi
> on wrote:
> John,
> Please remember this is Jon Lowe, not Jon Carter.  I was not involved in the transition to Joe as president.
>  
> You are correct in saying the sequence development timeline is supposed to be in the charter.  I was thinking when I talked to Joe yesterday that it was in the sequence guide. I pointed out to Joe today that it is supposed to be in the charter.  The committee was formed during the transition between Jon and Joe.  I can't speak to the status of the charter.  On reflection (and I just thought of this) this situation may be an unintended consequence of changing the sequence cycle to match FAI.  Forming the committee can now fall between presidents and boards.  When I became president, I had a few months to get on my feet before the start of the sequence committee.  Joe did not have that luxury.  We still had some issues with composition of the committee, and former members not being asked or informed about being on the committee. I got an earful about it when I was president.  I didn't know that in the past that the committee had been largely carried over cycle to cycle.  This fact it has come up again, as Tony points out, is part of the corporate memory problem NSRCA has.  There has also been a large turnover in the BoD which doesn't help matters.
>  
> Regarding the co-EDs. etc on the Nats; this all happened in the last couple of days.  Give them a chance to get it on the website.
>  
> Now that Joe is on this list, he can see what the hot topics are and respond appropriately. I'm sure he will appreciate your post on the timeline as he moves forward.
>  
> Jon (Lowe)
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sun, Jun 18, 2017 11:22 am
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170618/2bd59f42/attachment.html>