I cannot answer for Jim or any other member on this board. I do not know why I tend to be the only one who answers and I apologize. I feel that you should always be informed at all times but some of the times, I don't have the answers. I try very hard to keep everyone informed. I do however, find it ironic that those minutes have been out there since July and no one said boo until now.<div>
<br></div><div>I guess I need some clarification on what you said.. and why you would vote no:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:medium"><font color="#0000ff">Article V, Section III: This would change termination of membership from one month to three months dues delinquency. I see no reason for this change, and would commit the club to keep mailing K-Factors to delinquent members for two more months. At a time when there is a lot of debate on the board about the expense of the K-Factor, this makes no sense. Recommend voting NO on this item.</font></span><br>
</div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:medium"><br></span></div><div><font color="#000000">I read that you don't want to change the delinquency from the end of January to the end of March because you would just keep sending out Kfactors anyway regardless of what the By-Laws state. I read that you don't think it needs to be in writing but yet we should do it all by the book. It's contradictory. The whole purpose was to allow the Kfactor to keep being sent to delinquent members until the end of March instead of the end of January. This extends the time for members to get their dues paid instead of just being cut off. All we are doing is putting in writing what is already happening. For the past 2 years, I kept sending Kfactors through the March issue to hopefully get them to pay their dues and show some empathy as it's not always easy to come up with funds to pay member dues during Christmas time. If we did it by the book, I shouldn't have sent anything after the December issue. As far as your last sentence, the NSRCA currently pays for 500 copies and in order to get the "pre-sort" postage from USPS, we must order 500. Typically and depending on the month, we actually mail out 250-450 copies since I've been doing this based on the box that I receive as extras. So, whether we continue to mail out Kfactors for 1 month or 3 months, the cost does not change due to the fact we have to pay for 500. Actually, at the current way of doing the Kfactor, the more we mail out, the more we save as the extras have to be shipped to the Secretary. So it actually does make sense as the cost does not change aside from the box of extras that are shipped.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000">If I've misread what you intended, please help me to understand. You have a lot of knowledge Jon and I respect that a lot. There is zero disrespect intended here.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, <a href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com">jonlowe@aol.com</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com" target="_blank">jonlowe@aol.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I asked Jim to publish the changes as well as rationale but he refused. Very opaque to the membership. <br><br>I gave my reason for voting against the change in the dues grace period. If you re-read it, it is there. <br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>Jon<br><br></font></span><div><div class="im">----- Reply message -----<br>From: "Scott McHarg" <<a href="mailto:scmcharg@gmail.com" target="_blank">scmcharg@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 11:14 am<br>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Proposed NSRCA Bylaw changes<br></div><div class="im">To: "General pattern discussion" <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<br></div></div><div class="im">Gentlemen,<div> For clarification purposes only, Jon Lowe is incorrect about Article V Section III. Currently, the By-Laws say that any member who is delinquent for one calendar month will automatically have their membership services terminated. The change makes membership delinquency 3 months which allows us to continue sending Kfactors to individuals who may have forgotten to pay their dues in time. The way it reads right now, Kfactors should be terminated along with affiliation at the end of January. We have extended the grace period to 3 months (the end of March). We were trying to give you more, not less. I don't understand why he would recommend to vote no on this. I would suggest comparing the ballots to the By-Laws and make your own decision instead of using minutes to decide what was intended. As hurried as the meetings are, I admit, I make mistakes as I have to take all the information down quickly and make them into minutes. This is exactly why you should wait until you receive the "official" changes instead of jumping to conclusions. From what I saw that Jim was sending out, items are much more defined than in the minutes.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jon Lowe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jonlowe@aol.com" target="_blank">jonlowe@aol.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font color="black" size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<div><font style="background-color:transparent">SInce the bylaw change ballots have now been sent out, in accordance with the current bylaws, and since the NSRCA board has failed to provide any rationale for the changes (if they are going to propose changes, you'd think they'd own up to why they want to change them), I thought I'd review the proposed changes here and provide comments. Jim Quinn said that we could either vote for or against the entire package, or for individual items within the package. I will review the changes item by item, and provide what I think is the rationale for the change. As you will see below, I am recommending voting NO on several of the changes. I have not seen the official ballot yet and won't until at least Wednesday since I am out of town, so I am commenting on what was provided in the July 22nd NSRCA Board minutes. Note that there were several typos in those minutes, and that I have attempted to correct them where possible.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article II, Section I: This would change the business address from the Secretary to the Treasurer of the club. This is probably ok, since bills to the club are sent to the business address, and this could prevent delays in payment. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article III, Section I: This is part of the object and purpose of the Society. It would delete "...in all of its phases." from the second sentence so it would now read: "To aid, insofar as possible, the Academny of Model Aeronautics and other AMA activites, to further the advancement of model aircraft aerobatics." This change appears to be a clarification change, and should be ok.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article V, Section II(b): This appears to clarify the dues payment, and makes clear that dues should be made payable to NSRCA and not the treasurer. Appears to be ok.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article V, Section III: This would change termination of membership from one month to three months dues delinquency. I see no reason for this change, and would commit the club to keep mailing K-Factors to delinquent members for two more months. At a time when there is a lot of debate on the board about the expense of the K-Factor, this makes no sense. Recommend voting NO on this item.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article VIII, Section II (c): This change would remove the requirement to mail out ballots, and changes the wording to allow whatever method the board deems appropriate for voting, without specifying any method at all for votes to be taken. This change would also allow votes to be accepted until 10 days after Dec 31st, IF they were mailed out to members. This change appears to be why the abortive attempt was made for an electronic vote for officers this year, which disenfranchised many members who were not aware a vote was being taken. We do NOT require web access to be a member of NSRCA, and until we do, we MUST allow for ALL members to vote on officers of NSRCA. Strongly recomment voting NO on this change. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article VIII, Section III (e): This would change voting for District VPs in the same manner as the method in Article VIII, Section II (c) above. Strongly recommend voting NO.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article VIII, Section III (f): This change was listed as Article VII, Section III (f) in the Board meeting minutes, which I believe was a typo. This is a continuation of the change above to Article VIII, Section III(e) on voting deadlines. Strongly recommend voting NO.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article IX, Section I: This removes some unnecessary wording from the first paragraph of the Communications and Promotions portion of the by-laws. It appears to be a mistake made when this portion of the bylaws was writen. Appears to be ok.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article IX, Section II: This would remove the requirement for the K-Factor to be mailed to members. It would have to be "made available to all members", but doesn't say how. SInce the proposed wording is unclear, recommend voting NO on this change.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article IX, Section III (a): This removes the requirement for a Communications and Promotions manager appointed by the BOD, and changes that responsibility to the BOD itself. However, it does not assign that responsibility to anyone on the board. But it retains the provision for the board to appoint someone to be that manager. As a result the paragraph appears to contradict itself. Recommend voting NO on this change since the resulting language is ambiguous.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article IX, Section III (b): This change changes says that the Board "...shall appoint a Judging Program Manager." It currently says "...should appoint..." This change appears to be ok.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In summary, I believe that there are several problems with the proposed changes, and recommend that you read them carefully and understand each of the changes. I'd recommend either voting NO to the whole package, or voting against the specific changes I've outlined above.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for reading.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jon Lowe</div><span><font color="#888888">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div></div>
<div style="clear:both"><font color="black" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="black" face="arial"><span style="font-size:medium">Jon</span></font></font></div>
</font></span></font><br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><div class="im">
-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br><br>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<br><br>
</div>