<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
John<br>
I agree with everything you are saying about the need for the AMA to
stay involved in the rulebooks. And we clearly already have safety
rules in "our" section of the rulebook. Two new safety rule
proposals made it to the final vote. One of them related to
arming/disarming of the model when not on the flight line and it was
not an NSRCA proposal. This proposal had already been rejected by
the NSRCA and I have no intention of defending it. It is low hanging
fruit and it is being attacked as such.<br>
The other safety proposal is the failsafe proposal. Doesn't really
require a specific penalty, just a safety check. I did not intend
this just as a Nats rule as I believe it is much more important at
the local field. There was no downside to this proposal, there was
no major objection when we proposed it and I am still not hearing
any objections now but it still failed.<br>
I do not see that the AMA and CB truly considers the NSRCA to be a
SIG worth listening to. We are not asking for a rubber stamp on our
proposals but a partnership that can move past technical objections
to produce rule changes that work for both the NSRCA and the CB. <br>
Do you see a way forward on this?<br>
Thanks<br>
John<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/13/2012 7:28 AM, John Fuqua
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:023301cdd93e$286faea0$794f0be0$@com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS \;color\:\#3333FF";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1157309526;
mso-list-template-ids:1542258662;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">John<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In
essence AMA has turned over the rule book to the SIGs. I
think they retain control over its publication for a couple
of good reasons. First to ensure that we fit into the BIG
AMA picture which we do not always have. Another is that
not all contestants are NSRCA (or any other SIG) members so
some standardization/oversight of rules is still needed.
AMA would have no issue with us putting additional safety
rules for our events in the rule book while at the same
time ensuring the rules do not conflict with any policy,
legal or insurance issues. We need AMA for a lot of global
reasons. And I can categorically state that under current
leadership we are far better off than in years past. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<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-freetext" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>John Gayer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:51 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board -
Was Executive Board voting<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">John,<br>
Thanks for providing us with some insight into the thought
processes behind the decisions that were made. While I could
spend a lot of time countering the CB positions on many of the
proposals, for the most part they are over and done with.
Hopefully in the next cycle both the board and the NSRCA will
be more proactive in trying to resolve differences before it
is too late.<br>
The single item I really feel obligated to address is that of
the safety proposals. The main problem I have here is the AMA
position that they do not want to make a blanket rule and are
leaving it up to the SIGs for their specific circumstances.
This decision was apparently taken without informing the SIGs.
Now the NSRCA is being told on the one hand that the CB turned
down their proposals in part because the CB has to take into
account ALL pattern flyers and the AMA is apparently saying
that it is the NSRCAs responsibility to pass their own rules.
We can't do that for a number of reasons.<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">We don't have a separate NSRCA rulebook nor do
we have any enforcement power over CDs and/or their
contests. <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">Actually we do have a rulebook but it is under
the control of the AMA CB not the SIG and the CB has
declined to implement additional safety procedures requested
by the SIG<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">So if the NSRCA wants additional safety rules,
we need to amend the rulebook. Sounds like a catch-22 to me<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p>If the AMA wants to turn over the appropriate section of the
rulebook to each SIG, they should just say so. Right now I
consider the AMA to be in an untenable position. They are
directing(without informing) others to write rules the
directees have no way to enforce and turning a blind eye on
the potential dangers of runaway aircraft with unshielded
lawnmower blades on the front end. Failsafe and arming issues
have already caused damage and injury at just about every
field in the country. Whatever we can do to prevent both
carelessness and brain farts from killing or maiming we have
an obligation to push forward, at least for pattern. The
failsafe rule was an easy one. No additional equipment, just a
check to see that the equipment in place works properly. As
for the arming proposal, the one the NSRCA proposed did not
make it out of the preliminary vote but did not specify an
arming solution. Both of these proposal were similar to checks
currently being performed by the FAI.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As far as the lack of penalty is concerned, the first section
of the rules pertaining to safety reads as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span
style="color:#3333FF">6.1: </span></b><span
style="color:#3333FF">The CD at an AMA sanctioned event has
the authority to perform safety inspections of any equipment
and to prevent any participant from using equipment which in
the CDs opinion is deemed unsafe.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">We assumed this
paragraph provided the overriding penalty and placed the
enforcement authority where it should be- in the CDs hands. We
were just adding to the current safety checks that are already
listed. Several paragraphs are in section 6 without any
specific penalty listed and appear to rely on 6.1 for
enforcement. If the CD, does not have time(often the case) or
the expertise he can delegate this task to an e-smart
volunteer. As a CD, I would do everything I could to get a
plane in compliance and not enforce disqualification.
Disqualifying someone solves nothing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><br>
Thanks for all you do for pattern<br>
John Gayer<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, John Fuqua wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Maybe
I can offer some insight. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">If
a proposal says do something then there needs to be a
penalty or clear result that the CD can enforce. For
example both safety proposal had no penalty/result if not
complied with. Also was concern that although there may
be a visible plug that does not ensure that the system is
really disconnected. There was concern about adding
responsibility on the CD who may not be electric smart.
There is always concern that opened ended rules create
confusion. If you will remember the last cycle a lot of
work went into defining specific downgrades where to fore
no penalty was assigned.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
did, in fact, contact the AMA Tech Director twice on the
safety issues. AMA has taken the position that they do
not want to make a blanket rule for all electric activity
preferring to leave that to the SIGs to implement for
their specific circumstances. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On
the telemetry issue there was a consensus that we do not
have the technical means to validate that TM is being used
correctly. TM has great potential for misuse. How does
one enforce only battery monitoring for instance. I
know that the vast majority of folks do not cheat on the
rules but I know for a fact that it has happened. TM
will come up again. Newer radios have it so it will be a
fact of life. Have no idea where we are headed. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Weight
is always contentious but we had just implemented a weight
change the last cycle. I thinks the consensus was that
some experience with the current rule was warranted.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Advancement
is also a contentious issue. But I guess the majority
felt that this proposal was no better than what exists.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">We
did have an initial vote and 3 failed. Then we had a
cross proposals phase and then a final vote. I would be
happy to provide all vote results to NSRCA along with why
they failed (assuming I get that insight) and would have
done so this time if requested. My bad for not being
more pro-active but having done this for a long time with
never a request I guess I did not see this coming. AMA
does post the results but admittedly they are not always
timely.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">John
Fuqua</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">One
last thought. Board members rarely get feedback on
proposals. A lot of the time we just have to do what our
experiences tell is the right thing to do for our sport.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Scott McHarg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Contest board -
Was Executive Board voting</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mark and all CB members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I really doubt that anyone is upset
because the proposals got turned down. The problem is in
the lack of communication between the author (whether it
be an individual or committee). There was no report
published as to what the issues were, there was no
communication between the author(s) and the CB, there was
simply nothing. I watched online daily to see what the
results of the interim vote was so that we could take
corrective action as necessary. Those were never
published and to be honest, I'm not even sure there was an
interim vote. I spoke to a couple of CB members and I
will not call out their names in public as I do not want
to point fingers. I was told that I would be hearing from
the CB as the process went on so that proposals that
warranted improvement could be massaged into a rule that
made sense. So, I patiently waited along with the rest of
the folks. The next thing I know, all proposals are
turned down with no explanation and final votes have been
cast.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I received a brief explanation of
the thought process of one CB member right before the
final vote was to be taken (and I mean right before). It
was his opinion that he was expressing and I respect that
but what was said was pretty amazing to me. This person's
words went something like "This is the start of a great
rule but not close to being one yet. It is not our job to
help write the rules, simply to vote on them and uphold
the pattern community". I do not think for one second
this is how the entire CB feels and refreshed knowing this
is not the case. This simply tells me to submit what you
have and we'll make the decision. If it's good or if it's
a good start, the CB has no obligation to help get it
there, that's the author's responsibility. Please
understand, the proposals didn't pass and that's OK.
Maybe next time, we can all work together to come up with
proposals if they are warranted.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I am slightly distraught about the
Advancement Proposal. This would have made it so much
easier for everyone to fly in the class that they were
competitive in and/or felt comfortable in. This did not
change the pattern community and did not warrant any extra
work or duties, especially for the CD. There would not be
any more trophy hunting going on with it then there is now
as most local events are attended by the same individuals
and we all know who is flying in what class for the most
part. OK, so it got turned down but why? What is the
logic? Honestly, that's what I want to understand more
than anything. I definitely get the weight proposal. I
even get the "safety" proposal to some extent. This one,
the Advancement Proposal, I do not understand. If there
were arguments or heated discussions within the CB for
those that supported it and those that didn't, why
wouldn't the author(s) be included in the communication to
help explain the intent of the proposal so that it could
be made clear? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> As far as the safety proposal is
concerned, I really do get why that shouldn't be a pattern
rule but, did the proposal get passed to the AMA Safety
Committee? If it did, great! Why didn't we know? I
agree with some of y'all also that sometimes it "seems"
that safety procedures don't need a rule because most of
us are very careful and incorporate some safety device.
In racing motorcycles, you have to safety wire the
majority of your bolts and nuts at all times. Especially
the oil drain plug. Imagine a drain plug backing out and
hitting turn 6 at 120 mph and a fellow competitor going
through that. Trust me as I've seen oil and coolant on
the track and what happens, it's ugly. I do not agree,
however, that because most people are safety conscious and
have something in place, that a rule doesn't need to be
made. Imagine that case in the example above. The premise
that most do it so it's OK is not the correct mindset. We
wrote and rewrote that proposal to give the majority what
they wanted. People didn't want an arming plug to be
required. Cool, we said. Let's make it so that the
requirement is just that the plane is disarmed. Most
loved the new proposal because it directly reflected the
FAI rule and it did not require any added equipment or
weight or drilling holes in the side of your plane. Not
only did that proposal go down in flames but the original
proposal submitted by someone other than the NSRCA Rules
Committee requiring an arming plug passed the initial vote
from the CB. How did this happen after all the uproar?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> It seems to me that it is easy to
place blame on the NSRCA but ask to take the AMA to task
is a big no-no. We pay dues to the NSRCA and therefore we
have a voice! I agree 100%. But, we are also members of
the AMA and should have a voice there as well. We do not
(or so it seems). This is what, if anything I would like
to accomplish as a volunteer of the NSRCA; to increase
visibility of our community and have wide open
communication with our members and equally important, with
the AMA who really has the ultimate say-so in every facet
of this hobby. I want to know how to "fix it" for next
time and have the true open door policy where
communication flows both ways. One group or the other
should not be required to make the first call. We should
want to work together for the betterment of our hobby.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for reading,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Scott<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:16 PM,
Atwood, Mark <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:atwoodm@paragon-inc.com" target="_blank">atwoodm@paragon-inc.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Bottom line... Just because the majority of the NSRCA
wants it, doesn't mean we should be approving it.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
-Mark<br>
Mark Atwood<br>
Paragon Consulting, Inc. | President<br>
5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124<br>
Phone: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102">440.684.3101 x102</a>
| Fax: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:440.684.3102">440.684.3102</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a>>
| <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com" target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/" target="_blank">http://www.paragon-inc.com/</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Dec 12, 2012, at 12:19 PM, J N Hiller wrote:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Those of us that wish to be involved in the details can
get actively involved.<br>
<br>
Enough. On to the shop!<br>
<br>
Jim Hiller<br>
NSRCA 376<br>
.<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]On
Behalf Of Jon Lowe<br>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:33 AM<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting<br>
<br>
John,<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?"<br>
<br>
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!<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
Jon<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: John Gayer <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net">jgghome@comcast.net</a>>><br>
To: General pattern discussion <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>>><br>
Sent: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 11:16 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Executive Board voting<br>
[quote]ORIGINAL: jonlowe<br>
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.<br>
[/quote]<br>
<br>
<br>
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 president. Good 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.<br>
<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
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 contest board. 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?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<br>
NSRCA Treasurer<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">-- <br>
<b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Comic
Sans MS ;color:#3333FF","serif"">Scott
A. McHarg</span></b><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
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>