[NSRCA-discussion] Election

Thu Dec 27 05:42:45 AKST 2018

Very well explained Charlie. Much clearer now for sure !!

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:37 AM Charlie Barrera via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> 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
> <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/
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nsrca.us%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2e1c3cf00346458d1ec708d66948f90d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636812159472751011&sdata=Ur18IEwJ2zs17bNLkbnBiBQK%2B8DAgZks3UT9HE74xOY%3D&reserved=0>).
> 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
> <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.nsrca.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnsrca-discussion&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2e1c3cf00346458d1ec708d66948f90d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636812159472751011&sdata=hKgxO3s%2B4yRz5BVnpc5NNoac6CyoHRWEODwxGq6zVQ4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f2eee287/attachment.html>