[NSRCA-discussion] Election

Wed Dec 26 20:37:19 AKST 2018

Fellow members of the NSCRA:

 I’ve watched this rhetoric go back and forth for several days now. I feel that as your secretary, I must explain the happenings at our recent board meeting, specifically elections. 

As Secretary, I am tasked with a number of duties. I’m in charge of membership, board meeting minutes, and elections, to name a few. Yes I’m charged with elections. It is my responsibility to post candidates, coordinate web site voting, and of course, tally votes. There are two others that have access as administrators to our web site - the treasurer and the web master. Both of these men are current and in good standing in the NSRCA. They have the same access as I have. Because of my election responsibility, I check our web site everyday during this election month of December. I know who is ahead and who is behind. Have I ever disclosed this information to anyone - NO. However, at the board meeting I did disclose that voting for our two presidential candidates was very brisk. There has not been this number of votes cast in an election as long as I have been Secretary, and it was still early December. I had checked voting totals earlier that day and both candidates were tied in vote count. I urged our board members to express to their respective district members to vote, because it was a tight race. How this has become a question of ethics befuddles me. In no way were my comments meant to sway support for one candidate or the other. 

My question now becomes the motivation of the original post. It seems that the person that authored the original post drew his own conclusions. Unfortunately, others jumped on the band wagon. To those that added their comments, I wonder if they read the meeting minutes themselves? Do they know how to access the minutes on our web site? Are they letting someone else do their thinking? Some of their comments were very disruptive and viscous. 

It would have been unethical of me to not report everything that was discussed at that BoD meeting, but that is not the case. The meeting minutes are read and approved by all the board members before they are posted to our web site, so they are accurate. 

I’m saddened that our discussion forum is being used for political purposes, and not for its original intent - pattern. If you have a grievance with our organization, contact your respective DVP. He, in turn, will present it to the board and the board will act on it. Or, if you still have a problem that is not heard, volunteer and run for office. That is how things are done - not by sniping at everyone or anything that you don’t agree with. Our president has addressed the boards actions only to be disregarded, or at the very least, marginalized. Let’s get on with our sport - build and fly pattern!

Ok, I’m your new target. 

With respect and sincerity,
Charlie Barrera
Secretary
NSRCA

Sent from my iPad

> On Dec 26, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Interesting comment...
> 
> My experience is that I have posted previous opinions of conflict in the past. I tried to stay out of this one, but obviously did not.
> 
> I have a great deal of respect for those that serve. It is not about the person.
> 
> I have never felt or experienced any payback from posting my views on sensitive issues.
> 
> Since my flying is crappy anyways, I don't think I would notice... lol
> 
> 
> 
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 6, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: lucky macy <luckymacy at hotmail.com>
> Date: 12/26/18 12:13 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
> 
> It’ll be hilarious to read and listen to people talk about this spilling out into unfair judging next year and people getting back at people from the chair...
> 
> On Dec 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
>> Scott McNickle , I truly appreciate everything you have done as the D4 VP, I would/will support you time and time again. You have always acted with integrity and putting others before yourself. My rant is regarding a point being made of which I simply disagree with.
>>  
>> We need to stop acting like Elitists and start thinking about the NSRCA SIG as a whole.
>>  
>> The fact that we have volunteers (who were elected) does not provide a free pass in situations like this in my humble opinion.
>>  
>> I understand, appreciate, and respect that there are those that volunteer to put their name in the hat to be Elected… I will not look at situations like this with sympathy and feel bad for the appearance of some who use the platform and lower the bar.
>>  
>> From an empathetic point of view, my point of view…
>>  
>> Any person that puts their name in the hat to become an “Elected Officer” of any organization accepts performing in that role for a bigger purpose/cause than themselves. To act in an ethical manner with integrity to SERVE the MEMBERSHIP of the community. By not doing so brings consequences of criticism that comes with the responsibility/accountability, one Volunteered for, by the membership at large.
>>  
>> Only speaking on this election debacle topic...
>>  
>> My questions still haven’t been answered. I will assume the results were not reviewed by the BoD at one time, or that a BoD decision was to review them and talk about them.
>> 1)      Who brought the issue to the table regarding the votes during the BoD meeting?
>> a.       Who took it upon themselve’s to take the NSRCA on this ride?
>> 2)      Was there resistance in the BoD discussion, or are we so disconnected from the NSRCA Membership at large that we don’t care enough to act as an Elected Volunteer Officer?
>> I believe the membership at large is owed the answers.
>>  
>> Looking at the election results and leading a BoDs to take the actions and then work to sell the actions as acceptable has crossed the line from my point of view. Clearly there are many of us who believe this is wrong regardless of the outcome. It is a systemic issue of the decision making process with this group. Either no BoD member is challenging the decision(s), or all BoD members choose to be passive and accept whatever decision/direction is being made/offered. With this much conflict, surely the NSRCA elected somebody to make this challenge at the BoD level, even if they were over-ruled?
>>  
>> I challenge the BoD to tell me I’m wrong, publicly or privately. If it is believed that this principle I hold true is not valid in the eyes of the Volunteer Elected BoD, please let me know. I will most certainly find another Hobby that I will Volunteer to spend my time and money and attend any event to my liking as a member at large because I can’t be sympathetic to a cause in the NSRCA.
>>  
>> I belong to the NSRCA because at one time I identified with the principles/values. In order for me to offer a free pass because people simply “volunteered to be elected” and to act in an ethical manner with integrity, I would need to set aside my values and I will not do that. I will voice my concern and not accept being censored by BoDs who feels they are ENTITLED because they Volunteered to be Elected.
>>  
>> I am only one member and I suspect that I volunteer to support the NSRCA above the average member and ask nothing in return personally or financially. Does that make my view any less significant than someone who Volunteered to be Elected to serve on an Elected BoD? I don’t think so and I find the remarks about volunteering a bit whiny. If the BoDs would act with integrity and stop trying to pass it off as a good/acceptable thing, we would not be having this conversation/discussion.
>>  
>> Based on the facts posted in this discussion group, this BoDs (Present or Absent, no excuse) violated a code of conduct either written or implied by looking at the results (has never been the practice of any previous BoD) and taking an action that was not inclusive of all those affected (both candidates). It doesn’t matter what the By-Laws state and attempt to skirt the line and try to sell it as somehow acceptable… It is about what is right and what is wrong, and integrity, it’s that simple. If the Challenger was notified and took part in the decision making process on this topic, then Mea Culpa. However, that is not what I have read or seen. For me, this appears (perception, unlike facts/truth) more of a cover-up to hide the truth (or a person’s action) than being up front and forthright about what happened with the membership.
>>  
>> If the BoD or NSRCA Members at large thinks I am being unfair/unreasonable, then please, again… Let me know (publicly or privately) so I can make the adult decision and find a SIG my values align with.
>>  
>> Otherwise, up your game and act with integrity instead of an appearance of a self-serving agenda without regard of the membership as a whole that is being perceived by some of us in the NSRCA community.
>>  
>> I disagree with the point of guaranteeing folks won’t volunteer to take these positions. If this direction/deflection continues, there will not be any members left to volunteer.
>>  
>> There is not a good point taken sideways, it was action with the perception of self-serving. That is why it has gone sideways. People making decision without correctly understanding or identifying the potential outcome.
>>  
>> Derek, you are absolutely correct in that it is not good for the NSRCA.
>>  
>> If people could have been patient and waited for the outcome, we would not be in this position or having this debate/discussion. The issue on the table is not about promoting the election and getting people to vote.
>>  
>> The issue is that the results were compromised by the few BoD and instead of leveling the playing field, we offered the NSRCA membership a smoke and mirrors excuse to somehow think it is acceptable for one party to hold all the cards, know the tabulation while not disclosing the facts to all those who have also VOLUNTEERED to be ELECTED.
>>  
>> Again, if the Challenger was contacted and invited to be a part of the decision making process on how to handle the compromise, then none of this would have taken place. We then would have stated that all affected parties were aware and agreed to the direction. I don’t think we could have done that without identifying the indiscretion of a person(s). Logic tells me that the BoDs as a group did not decide to seek to review the results and take us down this path, thus the question is who and why? The answer is not “For the betterment of the NSRCA”. The answer is likely self-serving.
>>  
>> My .02, As my favorite comedian says, “…That is only my opinion, I could be wrong… (dm)”
>>  
>> Very Respectfully,
>>  
>> Larry Diamond
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of derek emmett via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2018 10:31 PM
>> To: Scott McNickle <nelson_jett at comcast.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>>  
>> Exactly Scott!  This was my experience being part of the sequence committee... Oh, please, please sign me up for that again!  ; )
>>  
>> This continued public diatribe, that has gone completely sideways, almost guarantees you couldn’t pay an individual to take on any of these positions.
>> 
>> A good point taken completely sideways, then upside down needs to stop. This is not healthy for our community.
>>  
>> 
>> On Dec 25, 2018, at 7:02 AM, Scott McNickle via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, let me get this straight...you think someone would cheat to get a job that pays nothing, takes up a lot of time and sets you up to be sniped at by anyone feeling cranky on a particular day, or just in general?  And you think that the Board of Directors, who devote countless hours trying to promote and maintain our hobby, put lots of thought into trying to produce interesting K Factor columns for you to read every month, and often spend considerable amounts of their own money attending Pattern-related events when they might rather be doing something else, would conspire to favor one volunteer over another?
>> 
>> And you want to 'censure' us?
>> 
>> Well, that's just hilarious.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Scott McNickle
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On December 24, 2018 at 6:48 PM Ken Dunlap via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Joe.
>>  
>> In your words " There is   not   a requirement (implied or otherwise) for a veil of secrecy in the process." So, in this spirit I have a couple of questions.
>>  
>> 1) Did you see or were you made aware of the actual vote count in your race?
>> 2) Did you see or were you made aware of the number of NSCRA members who have voted to date?
>> 3) If you saw or were made aware of vote numbers, did you have access to who a member voted for in this election?
>> 4) Was this information shared at the same time with all candidates or their representatives for each race?
>> 5) Under the NSRCA By-Laws and Constitution, Article VIII Section 2e  says " e. A third party to the NSRCA such as an external audit group of the AMA should count all votes." If actual voting number totals were revealed, was a potential conflict with the By-laws discussed by any member of the Board and who did so?
>>  
>> Thanks for the clarifications.
>>  
>> Ken Dunlap
>>  
>>  
>> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of J via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 9:38 PM
>> To: Tony Frackowiak; General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>>  
>> Good evening all,
>> First, thank you Tony F. for starting this thread as it is great to see interest in the process.  As a point of information, the Board did indeed discuss the status of the elections at the December 2018 meeting, as clearly reflected in the minutes. This was done for two reasons. 
>> 1. To verify that everything was up and running properly, and
>> 2. To encourage as much of the membership as possible to cast their vote.
>>  
>> The DVP’s were encouraged to reach out to their local members to vote, which you still can do for the next week or so. Please, encourage all who have not voted to please do so for whomever they like. 
>>  
>> It’s great to see such passion about the process. It’s also helpful to stick to what we know to be true and factual. There is not a requirement (implied or otherwise) for a veil of secrecy in the process.  Any suggestion otherwise is simply incorrect.  Also, there was no advocating one candidate over another. There was however, excitement in people participating in the electronic ballot process. 
>>  
>> Here’s the good news.  If you feel strongly enough to change the voting process, you have that power and can submit that request to modify the bylaws as a member. You also have to opportunity to whip votes for the Candidate of your choosing until voting closes on December 31, with an electronic vote, or a written ballot for an additional 10 calendar days per the bylaws. 
>> 
>> So, tell all your friends that time is running short to let your voice be heard. Go online now and cast your vote ( https://www.nsrca.us/). Every vote matters!
>>  
>> Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!
>>  
>> Joe
>> 
>> On Dec 22, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Tony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I was looking at the minutes of the December 12th NSRCA BOD meeting. During that meeting according to the minutes there was a discussion about the current vote count in the election. 
>>  
>> Isn’t voting open until the end of the month?  And isn’t there a longer time for mailed in ballots to be received? Why are the votes being tallied and discussed by the Board before the end of the voting period?
>>  
>> That is highly unethical and smacks of voting fraud. At the very least it sounds like an attempt to influence the results. 
>>  
>> I will await a reply. 
>>  
>> Tony Frackowiak 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181227/dacc0c29/attachment.html>