<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Mark,<br>
<br>
I certainly can sympathize with a bunch of pattern-loving volunteers
trying to do their best. Thank you for taking the time to weigh in
here. I do have a couple of suggestions that should save time for
both the CB and anyone making rules proposals down the road. <br>
<ol>
<li>Provide a rules of the road document rather than just a
timetable of events that potential proposers could access. You
made a start on such a document with this post but I don't know
if you are basing this on an actual CB document or just internal
CB tribal knowledge currently in place. Such a document would
have helped us immensely. In some cases we might have dropped a
proposal, in others we would have known that we had an uphill
fight.<br>
</li>
<li>In the interest of transparency and to assist the process in
the next cycle, a report out document is essential- listing both
individual votes and a majority position. If the vote is close,
a minority position would be good too.</li>
</ol>
<p>Just a couple of specifics in reply. The NSRCA does not expect
any special consideration from the CB. Everything I have said
would apply to anyone generating a rules proposal. I was trying to
point out that we did what we could to find out the community
wishes in a pretty short time frame(our fault, not yours)and our
survey was not restricted to NSRCA members. Our bylaws(a sore
point lately) require that we address potential rule changes.<br>
On safety rules, I do consider pattern to be a special case. Our
planes could end a life easily enough and cannot be treated with
the same casual attitude as park flyers. The AMA has to regard
both these types under the same blanket safety rules. The FAI has
seen fit to add specific pattern aircraft safety rules so there is
a precedent there as well. I agree most of us understand what is
required for safe operation. All I want is a quick check at the
field that the safe operation is being followed by all.</p>
<p>Cheers<br>
John<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/12/2012 12:16 PM, Atwood, Mark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:065CAF77-9882-4B68-B44B-8A9AADC72E4E@paragon-inc.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OK, As a CB member I want to throw a few quick things out there. First and foremost, Just like the NSRCA Board, we're a group of volunteers that love modeling and Precision Aerobatics, and we do the best we can with fulfilling our charter. If there are issues, mistakes, bad choices, GOOD choices, they are all the result of a dedicated group TRYING to do their best. There is no hidden agenda or malicious intent...ever.
That said I think one of the clear disconnects is our Charter. We are selected to the contest board based on our years of experience in the hobby, the sport, a demonstration of our understanding of the AMA and its rules, and an active participation and understanding in the niche within which we are representing.
We have some obligation to preserve Pattern, as Pattern. I.e. if the ENTIRE NSRCA membership voted unanimously to change the rules such that whom ever could fly 10 laps the fastest wins... We would have an obligation to vote NO, regardless of that unanimous support. I.e go fly Pylon. Occasionally we are presented with rules that we collectively feel are not in the best interest of maintaining Pattern competition and this then comes into play. This is especially true when rules are put forth that strongly alter the lower classes (Often championed by someone with heavy interest and enthusiasm, but minimal years of experience to know how these things manifest).
We also have an obligation to the logistics of the sport. Rules that place an unreasonable burden on running an event bare a much higher level of scrutiny prior to being passed.
We have an obligation to the AMA to keep some consistency with their general rules, and with similar rules in other disciplines. Safety issues fall squarely into this camp. The AMA has long stated that they do not support legislating out stupidity, or creating burdensome rules that punish the masses simply to protect against carelessness (Unless of course the result of such error is catastrophic).
Also regarding safety, if the safety issue is somewhat generic to the hobby, then those regulations are pushed up to the AMA safety board for review unless they are very specific to the individual discipline.
Bottom line... Just because the majority of the NSRCA wants it, doesn't mean we should be approving it.
Lastly, the statement "The majority of the NSRCA" does NOT necessarily mean the survey results. That is a VERY small subset of our group. It's typically a subset of the vocal, or the opinionated, or both. I can't speak for the entire CB, but I WILL speak for Verne (Sorry Verne) and me, in that we both query as many of our district members that we see or can solicit. MANY times an issue that has been fired up on the list or via the survey gets a very different 'vote' when it's discussed in the actual setting of a contest, and when all the inputs are weighed (I.e. everyone standing there discusses it).
All that said, there's no reason why we couldn't collectively write an assenting or dissenting opinion much in the way a court does, to at least convey the logic that was used to make our vote.
Anyhow, the entire CB is online and our names are published. One need but ask... and many do. But we're sometimes remiss to post too much on the discussion boards about a proposal. Rather most of us take a back seat to the discussion and simply listen.
-Mark
Mark Atwood
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 | Fax: 440.684.3102
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"><mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com></a> | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com">www.paragon-inc.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"><http://www.paragon-inc.com/></a>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
I'm not too old to remember what it was like before the NSRCA. If you traveled very far you could find yourself competing in an unfamiliar event.
The NSRCA has matured since those early days and contributed greatly to standardized judging, rule proposal screening and national unity. YES the NSRCA has value well beyond the K-Factor.
Yes it would be nice to get the rest of the story from the AMA contest board as to why safety related rules were voted down. Maybe I missed it but at this point I can only guess. I could probably ask directly and get a reply but I trust they had a valid reason.
I also trust our BOD to lead the NSRCA on my behalf without having to explain, discuss or endlessly argue details in an open forum. Open discussed can be extremely time consuming with limited productivity. There is no making everyone happy especially if their' participation is hit and miss continuously requiring covering old ground.
Those of us that wish to be involved in the details can get actively involved.
Enough. On to the shop!
Jim Hiller
NSRCA 376
.
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org></a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]On Behalf Of Jon Lowe
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
John,
I have never intentionally attacked anyone, either on this forum or on the discussions over on RCU. I've asked questions, seeking answers. I tend to be direct in my emails and they may appear to be harsh, probably comes from my background dealing with the military. I have not accused anyone of having an agenda, nor do I think anyone on the board does. If you or anyone else thinks that is what I've implied or am implying, I'm sorry.
I think after seeing what you said here, seeing the complete NSRCA survey results, and several private emails and phone calls, that there is a general apathy in NSRCA which seems to have its roots in people questioning the relevancy of the organization. If NSRCA is not relevant and doesn't provide added value to the membership, we can turn the sequences back over to the AMA and disband. I'd like to see NSRCA viewed as returning far more in value to the membership than the few dollars they invest each year. A question we all need to constantly ask ourselves is "If someone asks me why I should join the NSRCA, what do I tell them?"
The K-Factor is a recurring theme in the survey and people I have talked to in terms of value to the members. I would like to congratulate Scott McHarg and the rest of the K-Factor crew on the December issue of the K-Factor. I everyone reading this hasn't looked at it, it has a lot of how-to in it. Good job!
I didn't mean to imply that the AMA competition board should not have been much more transparent during the rules proposal process. They should have been, and that communication is one thing I'd work on to improve if elected. I am an advocate of follow-up, follow-up, follow-up. And if we are going to ask others to be transparent to us, then we need to walk the talk.
Again, sorry if I offended anyone. I was asking questions that I didn't see anyone else asking, and I wanted to know the answers. I hope the membership will see this continuing discussion as constructive, and offer their thoughts.
Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: John Gayer <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net"><mailto:jgghome@comcast.net></a>>
To: General pattern discussion <<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>>
Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe
Transparency. I think the spilled milk has been discussed enough, from the AMA rules change proposal process by the board, to the bylaws, to the aborted officer election.
[/quote]
I certainly agree that there were processes that could have been improved relative to the bylaw changes and officer election. However to call them aborted and imply in various other posts that the board has a hidden agenda is over the top. Clearly the board could have and should have done a better job on the elections and, for that matter, the treasurer's audit but there was no intent to hoodwink or put one over on the membership. We are nothing but a bunch of volunteers with a love of pattern. When the call went out two years ago, noone else stood up and said "I want to run for office". Various coercions were applied to get Ed Alt to run for President and Scott McHarg to run for Secretary.I will admit to calling Derek and asking if they had found a Treasurer in mid-December. When he said yes, I thanked him and was about to hang up when he said "you". Later that year Ed Alt resigned due to the press of work and Jim Quinn who was then VP reluctantly assumed the reins of presid
ent. Go
od choice or not, there was noone else champing at the bit to take the job and the board gratefully accepted Jim as president. I didn't see anyone jumping up and down to get on the board at that time or, for that matter, now. Kind of wonder where all the current contrarians were then. Jon, I guess you were still recovering from your retirement so that excuses you but there are plenty of others making derogatory comments about the actions of the current board. Where are you when we need help? Apparently looking the other way. Right now John Bruml has been trying to get out of being the Advertising Manager almost as long as I’ve been on the board. Where are those clamoring to help out? Apparently using their energies to bash those who did throw their hat in.
LOWE>>Oh, and about the Contest Board. Their process is well documented by the AMA and follows a strict time table. We all had the opportunity to provide inputs and cross proposals after the initial vote. We also had the opportunity to talk to the CB members, and I did talk to a couple of them. The CB members are mostly active members of the pattern community, are well known, and are charted by the AMA, not the NSRCA, to look at rules proposals to benefit all AMA participants, not just NSRCA members. Problems with the NSRCA proposals were hashed out here, and the submitters had the opportunity to fix issues during the cross proposal process. How much follow-up contact did the NSRCA board initiate with the CB during the process? Were any cross proposals submitted?<<LOWE
Jon, this seems to have provided the impetus for your presidential campaign. I can only say that the NSRCA Rules committee operated openly, if with a late start, and solicited input from the membership on RCU and this list(and outside the membership as well), ran a survey, modified proposals to meet objections and finally submitted proposals to the contest board. More open you cannot get. I find it fascinating that to you, the NSRCA board must be open and direct with its membership(as it should) but when dealing with the contest board we are expected to dig, pry and canvas the board members in an effort to find out how our proposals are doing and what objections might have been raised. Why is the same openness not required in both cases in your mind?? While it is clear in the published process that cross-proposals could be submitted within a window, we had no way of knowing which or what part of our proposals were causing difficulty. There was no contact initiated by the cont
est boa
rd. Adding insult to injury, there was no “report out” published, listing the pro and con votes by district and any discussed objections. As I have said before, I have no more idea what it takes to get a proposal passed through the CB then I did a year ago before the NSRCA rules committee formed. How do you explain the dichotomy between your views of the contest board and the NSRCA board?
Relative to the Nats, it is clear to everyone on the board that the Nats are in the control of the AMA which has been true ever since NPAC went away. We, the board, present a candidate to the AMA, who has always been accepted. After that we lose any control. Although since I’ve been on the board, there have been various problems at the Nats which many blame on the NSRCA not the AMA. Arch has been good about keeping us in the loop but he makes it clear who he reports to. He and previous EDs and the AMA staff have been great about providing logistic support for the banquet, ice cream social, etc. However there is no question about the ED having two bosses, AMA is it. The NSRCA is responsible for using the funds collected by the AMA on our behalf to purchase the necessary scoring equipment and paying the volunteer staff what we can. This is never enough to even cover their expenses at the Nats much less travel.
John Gayer
NSRCA Treasurer
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"><mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>