<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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.<br>
<ol>
<li>We don't have a separate NSRCA rulebook nor do we have any
enforcement power over CDs and/or their contests. </li>
<li>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<br>
</li>
<li>So if the NSRCA wants additional safety rules, we need to
amend the rulebook. Sounds like a catch-22 to me</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.</p>
<p>As far as the lack of penalty is concerned, the first section of
the rules pertaining to safety reads as follows:<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
</p>
<p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<link rel="File-List"
href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CWestEng%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><font
color="#3333ff"><b>6.1: </b>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.<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;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.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><br>
Thanks for all you do for pattern<br>
John Gayer<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/12/2012 5:29 PM, John Fuqua
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:019a01cdd8c8$fb830920$f2891b60$@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:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
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.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";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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">Maybe
I can offer some insight. <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>
<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.<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>
<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. <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>
<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. <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>
<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.<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>
<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. <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>
<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.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">John
Fuqua<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>
<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.<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><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 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 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>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<o:p></o:p></span></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">Scott A. McHarg</span></b><br>
Sr. Systems Engineer - Infrastructure<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</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>