[NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.
John Gayer
west.engineering at comcast.net
Sun Jun 18 14:16:39 AKDT 2017
I can't find it on the AMA website either. I suspect it is in some
specific AMA document on how the Nats are run.
As I recall from my time as treasurer, there is one CD for the Nats.
That's the whole Nats, not the Pattern Nats. Each sub-category such as
RC Aerobatics, has an Event Director, who reports to the Contest Director.
Therefore in terms of Pattern, the Event Director is in charge of the
"event" and is responsible to the CD, not the NSRCA board. This is Al
Glenn. The NSRCA does, however, defray a small part of the costs
incurred by the ED.
The AMA docs I can find all refer to local/regional contests. The Nats
is a separate animal as described above.
John
On 6/18/2017 3:52 PM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
> Please help me understand where the term ED comes from. Since I can’t
> find it on the AMA website, I assume that it must be an NSRCA term
> documented in our Procedures, By-Laws, or something.
>
> *_AMA Sanction Application:_*Document 302, Revision 2.14.2017
>
> AMA Definitions:
>
> *_CD – Contest Director:_*For all rule book sanction events. Must be
> identified on the AMA Sanction Application. Cannot be changed by
> anyone other than by the AMA or through resignation.
>
> *_Event Manager:_*For all Non-Rule Book Sanctioned events.
>
> The AMA does not seem to identify an “Event Director” in the Sanction
> Application or on the AMA website. So where does it come from?
>
> The AMA clearly states if you have an AMA rule-book event, you must
> have a CD, end of story. Nowhere on the Sanction Application is it
> stipulated for an ED. There are 15 times Director is in the form, all
> of which is the CD. In reviewing the Sanction Application, there are
> no previsions for a Co-Contest Director.
>
> Who completed and signed the Sanction Application? If it is Al Glenn,
> then he is legally bound to the Sanction and our AMA insurance
> coverage depends on it. If it somebody else, then they are. If the
> NSRCA wishes to appoint an Event Director, it is my opinion that it
> becomes a supporting role to the CD. The CD is overall responsible for
> the contest to the AMA exclusively and to adhere to all AMA
> regulations and rules. I believe if there is a conflict between the
> NSRCA and the AMA, the AMA documentation prevails.
>
> Any attempt to circumvent the AMA sanction by appointing somebody over
> a registered CD, becomes a disaster. I’m not an attorney and somebody
> who is should help clarify, as there becomes a risk of liability in
> the event of property damage or personal injury. Even a new out of
> school attorney wouldn’t have much of a problem with that case. At the
> top of the liability ring would be the NSRCA, and the AMA for allowing
> such a disaster to occur.
>
> On another note, the NSCRA BoD either individually or collectively has
> disenfranchised at least two NSRCA members for doing the right thing.
> Both have served the NSRCA with Honor and dignity. To them, I
> personally apologize for the way the NSRCA has treated you this past
> few weeks. I thank you for your courage, humility, and dedication.
>
> *_Joe Walker_*, this is on you. You are our President and the leader
> of the BoD. From my point of view, taking a path of ignorance does
> show the reason for this fiasco, but more importantly _it does not
> show ownership of the situation at hand_. You accepted the role, you
> own it. Please take immediate control.
>
> For me, the website chatter is noise. Has no relevance to the
> situation other than to deflect responsibility of the NSRCA
> Leadership. Doesn’t sit well with me. Most likely because of my
> Military background.
>
> Personally, I believe in you as well as the others on the BoD. I
> believe you will right this ship (sorry, retired Navy guy here). You
> have zero time to get it done.
>
> Regarding the NATs, The registered CD is in charge and we [NSRCA] must
> let the CD take control. It may be better to use the same contest
> format as last year as we are out of time to implement changes without
> disenfranchising members who either will or are planning to attend.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but it is my .02
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Larry Diamond
>
> *From:*NSRCA-discussion
> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Joe
> Walker via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 18, 2017 2:08 PM
> *To:* Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern
> discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Cc:* John Gayer <west.engineering at comcast.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe Walker on
> NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.
>
> Good afternoon all,
>
> I appreciate the points being brought up and will certainly work hard
> to ensure that all guidelines and requirements are met. I must admit,
> it’s been difficult searching for information myself, let alone folks
> who are seeking guidance that are not directly involved in making
> decisions that affect all of us. This fact alone has been a core
> driver in my decision to become involved in the organization in more
> direct way.
>
> Now, that said, we need to find a path forward that works for the
> organization as a whole, and of course the entirety of the membership.
> There are innumerable points that we can all get mired in, debate and
> get irritated about, but my primary interest is gathering all legacy
> information, previous comments, new input, etc., and match the task of
> clearly documenting and organizing that information into a useful, and
> user friendly format. This serves not only my personal needs to know
> where to look, but also serves the membership by having all
> information and resources at our fingertips.
>
> This effort has started with an overhaul of the website. Through no
> individual’s actions, the previous life of the website became a
> repository of bits and pieces of these resources, rather than a lean
> and clear source of information. Many of these resources are quite
> useful and had been meticulously created by NSRCA members over the
> years. Unfortunately, some of documents conflict each other and some
> are silent on issues that need direction or clarity. Some procedural
> requirements are missing all together. Derek Koopowitz has generously
> donated countless hours of his personal time and financial resources
> to develop and maintain the web presence. His efforts should be
> commended! Peter Vogel has spent just as much time developing and
> refining content for the website. What we really need now is a few
> folks with an eye for detail and are tuned in to procedures and rules
> to assist in vetting the information that we have posted and help
> create a more comprehensive resource that has reliable information and
> links to other regulatory agencies that affect our procedures. This
> is a giant task that would go to serve us all well in the end.
>
> You may ask why I am talking about the website in relation to the
> sequences or the format of the Nats topics du jour. Well, it’s all
> related at the core of the issues at hand, information. Many of the
> points that have been brought up in these discussion forums are
> completely reasonable points. We need to get to a place where we are
> able to distance the points that are being made from the distracting
> emotions. For those that have read my articles in the K-Factor, this
> theme has been clear and consistent. I’ve also directly reached out
> and asked for folks to email me personally (via the K-Factor articles)
> with any legacy information that they feel is missing from the site or
> the decisions they see that are being made. We have an opportunity to
> make course corrections pretty easily in most cases to adjust the path
> of a project, task, or procedure, but this requires assistance from
> the entire membership. It especially requires the long term members
> who have served in these previous capacities to contribute.
>
> I am always seeking passionate volunteers to devote their skills and
> energy towards making the processes better. I commit to keeping the
> NSRCA on a forward trajectory by doing my best to ensure that
> decisions are followed through with and tasks are completed. Clearly
> things will be missed, and I’m certainly not claiming perfection. I
> am seeking assistance though. Are you willing to contribute to a
> solution to help keep the NSRCA organized, accessible and responsive
> to the needs and desires of the membership? If so, please reach out
> to me directly and I’m happy to work together to forge a plan that
> benefits all of us. I appreciate the extra effort that Jon Lowe made
> to speak with me directly and help turn a situation he was unhappy
> about into a productive strategy to make it better. I’m available
> (mostly…), and I invite folks to give me a ring. Let’s talk it out
> and develop a solution together. “The Board” is not a secret society
> of folks looking to destroy what we have, it’s a group of folks who
> have volunteered their personal time to help make our weekend fun with
> toy airplanes more enjoyable by alleviating the general membership of
> daunting task of organization. Please reach out to your DVP’s and
> help them communicate concerns and ideas that can be formally
> presented to the Board for discussion and approval.
>
> Best,
>
> Joe Walker,
>
> NSRCA President
>
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> wrote:
>
> +1. Thank you John. Just as a side note. I was on the Sequence
> Committee for the previous 2 cycles. I was not informed in any way
> that I would not still be on the Sequence Committee. I was also
> very surprised that the BOD appointed a Chairperson who had never
> participated in the process before. In the past, I believe, the
> Chair always came from the existing Committee.
>
> Tony Frackowiak
>
> On Jun 18, 2017, at 9:21 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> <NSRCA_Pattern_Sequence_Development_Committee_Charter_Rev1p1_10-01-12.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20170618/8827f55d/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list