<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hard for people to volunteer for positions that they do not know are open. The BOD could have solicited a volunteer for Chair of the Sequence Committee if they had sent a notice to the current Sequence Committee members. They apparently did not do that.<div><br></div><div>Tony Frackowiak</div><div> <br><div><div>On Jun 18, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto">December 16, 2016, the previous board passed a motion appointing Sean as the Sequence Committee Chair {Book of Motions}. The email did go out about the appointing and setting up of the sequence committee. I do recall it getting tabled once. I still run the calendar which also contains the KFactor article notifications for the board. So, they were already behind by 45 days when Sean was appointed. I recall also us having an issue finding a volunteer for this position as Dale wanted to step down. This is probably one reason for the tardiness and is probably one of the biggest problems the NSRCA faces continually...the lack of people wanting to step up and volunteer. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 14:29 John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Jon, I wasn't addressing the presidential passing of the baton and I
know the difference between Jon and Jon, even if neither know how to
spell your name.<br>
<br>
The timeline is not <i>supposed</i> to be in the charter, it <i>is</i>
in the charter. The switchover to FAI scheduling has nothing to do
with it as the timeline I posted from the charter document is in
terms of working back from the delivery date, not absolute years.
Also, the committee chair was supposed to be determined last October
and the members set in November when the president was Jon Carter. I
don't know when that actually happened but Joe should have received
a full sequence committee including members when he took over. I
don't know that it actually happened on schedule. There used to be
a calendar which Scott McHarg kept to remind the board of various
due dates. In fact you, Jon Lowe, might have started that because
the board historically wasn't staying on top of stuff.<br>
<br>
As far as the website is concerned, it does take more than a couple
days to get it updated. I see nothing on the NSRCA facebook page on
any of the subjects I listed. The Sequence committee stuff is six
months behind. Where are we supposed to look for current info?</div><div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
<br>
John</div><div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
<br>
<div class="m_3804344735994447896moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017 12:53 PM, Jon Lowe via
NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="3" color="black" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<div>John,</div>
<div>Please remember this is Jon Lowe, not Jon Carter. I was
not involved in the transition to Joe as president.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You are correct in saying the sequence development timeline
is supposed to be in the charter. I was thinking when I
talked to Joe yesterday that it was in the sequence guide. I
pointed out to Joe today that it is supposed to be in the
charter. The committee was formed during the transition
between Jon and Joe. I can't speak to the status of the
charter. On reflection (and I just thought of this) this
situation may be an unintended consequence of changing the
sequence cycle to match FAI. Forming the committee can now
fall between presidents and boards. When I became president,
I had a few months to get on my feet before the start of the
sequence committee. Joe did not have that luxury. We still
had some issues with composition of the committee, and former
members not being asked or informed about being on the
committee. I got an earful about it when I was president. I
didn't know that in the past that the committee had been
largely carried over cycle to cycle. This fact it has come up
again, as Tony points out, is part of the corporate memory
problem NSRCA has. There has also been a large turnover in
the BoD which doesn't help matters.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regarding the co-EDs. etc on the Nats; this all happened in
the last couple of days. Give them a chance to get it on the
website.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now that Joe is on this list, he can see what the hot
topics are and respond appropriately. I'm sure he will
appreciate your post on the timeline as he moves forward.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Jon (Lowe)</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="color:black;font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
<a class="m_3804344735994447896moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
To: Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion
<a class="m_3804344735994447896moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
Sent: Sun, Jun 18, 2017 11:22 am<br>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] LONG conversation with Joe
Walker on NATs, sequence proposals, and other NSRCA issues.<br>
<br>
<div id="m_3804344735994447896AOLMsgPart_1.2_de23fb10-2251-47ee-8c62-bb55428b1a43">
<div class="m_3804344735994447896aolReplacedBody" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#3333FF"> Jon,<br>
<br>
Relative to the scheduling of the new sequences, there is
a document that addresses the timeline for the sequence
committee. This document is not on the website, at least
not in the logical place under sequence development. Here
is the section about the schedule. This document was
generated in 2012 to separate the functions of the
committee from the sequence development guide which gets
some updates every cycle.<br>
<br>
<font color="#000066">4 Suggested Sequence Submittal
Process<br>
The following is the recommended timeline for the
development and submission of new sequences. Sequence<br>
development should always start in two years prior to
when the sequence is to be replaced. For example, if the<br>
Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in
2015 (X) then work on the development of a new<br>
sequence should start in 2013 (X – 2). What follows is a
timeline showing the activity (task) and the month the<br>
activity should start:<br>
TASK TIMELINE<br>
Assign and approve Committee Chairperson October - year
X – 2<br>
Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership
October – year X - 2<br>
BoD approves Committee Membership November – year X - 2<br>
Establish development schedule December – year X - 2<br>
Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes
December – year X - 2<br>
Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test
January through March – year X - 1<br>
Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor
April through May – year X - 1<br>
Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments
June through August – year X - 1<br>
Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval
October– year X - 1<br>
Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor
November – year X -1<br>
New sequences in use January – year X<br>
<br>
<font color="#3366ff">There is no question about the
requirement for publishing the proposed sequences. It
was supposed to happen the beginning of April. From
your email it appears that neither you or Joe were
aware of the publication requirement or the dates
involved. I know you addressed the lack of continuity
between boards in your ppost but I believe the
Committee had this document and should have shared it
with the board. Certainly all past Committee members
had a copy.<br>
<br>
There is another section in this document that
addresses the makeup of the committee and the
oversight function of the board.<br>
<br>
<font color="#000000">2.3 Membership<br>
There should be at least six Committee members
excluding the Chairperson and should, if possible,
contain at<br>
least one member who is currently competing in each
of the AMA classes. There should be representation
from<br>
as many NSRCA districts as possible on the
committee. Non pilots and non NSRCA members may be<br>
committee members, provided that their
qualifications meet the approval of the Chairperson
and the BoD. The<br>
Committee shall contain at least one current member
of the BoD. All members of the Committee are voting<br>
members.<br>
<br>
2.5.1 Standard Committee Procedures<br>
• The NSRCA President shall be the primary point of
contact for communications between the<br>
Committee Chairperson and the Board on all matters
of directive nature, and for deliverables from<br>
the Committee.<br>
• The Chairperson will select members for his/her
committee and propose a team to the BoD.<br>
• The BoD will review the Committee for national
(District) balance and representation across<br>
Intermediate through Masters Classes and, if
necessary, provide recommendations on the<br>
Committee members to the Chairperson. The BoD will
then vote to accept or reject the proposed<br>
Committee members.<br>
• The Chairperson and Committee members agree to
work as a team and reach a consensus on the<br>
Committee’s proposals. They agree to support the
Committee’s proposal and not submit separate<br>
proposals on these sequences to the BoD.<br>
• The Committee shall perform their tasks within the
schedule of milestones as defined by the BoD.<br>
• The Committee will produce proposed changes to
sequences based on input from the membership<br>
and their experience. The sequences will be
published in the K Factor and on the NSRCA website<br>
for review.<br>
• The Committee will coordinate with the
Rules/Judging Committee Chairperson to produce the<br>
final proposals, with supporting rationale, to be
approved by the BoD.<br>
• Sequences for Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced
and Masters Class will be developed for<br>
presentation to and review by the precision
aerobatics community on the NSRCA website. New<br>
sequences may not necessarily be presented for all
classes.<br>
<br>
<font color="#3366ff">I have cherry-picked the
pertinent sections from the document but have also
attached the complete document. It's pretty clear
that the directives contained here were not
followed. The current committee makeup does not
conform to the document in terms of consensus,
geographical distribution, number of members or
the requirement for a current board member.<br>
<br>
On another subject, It is my understanding from
when I was on the board that the NSRCA board
proposes the ED to the AMA. Once that is done, the
ED responsibility is to the AMA not the NSRCA. At
that point, the NSRCA no longer has any authority
over the ED. If that is still the case, how is the
<i>board</i> creating Co-EDs or changing the ED?
And directing change to the finals from the
originally published setup when this is solely up
to the ED? It is very late to be running surveys
and reevaluating procedures with the start barely
a month away. Even the survey itself seems to be
problematic. I've attended four of the last six
Nats, year before last in Masters but didn't
qualify for the survey? <br>
<br>
Also we are finding out that the F3A finals have
been changed back to the normal format. We find
this out because Jon had a long conversation with
Joe and posted on the list? I can't find anything
on the website about the Co-CD change, the survey,
the change to the F3A final or what's going on
with the sequence committee, committee members or
committee members that have resigned and been
replaced. The Masters finals sequence that was
developed without establishing any sequence
guidelines( at least not that were published) or
buyin from the board is a case in point of the
lack of transparency of the current committee.<br>
<br>
John Gayer<br>
</font></font></font></font><br>
<div class="m_3804344735994447896aolmail_moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017 6:25 AM,
Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Joe and I had a LONG conversation
Saturday about the NATS, sequences, and NSRCA in
general. This email is what I heard based on that
conversation and he knows I'm writing this. I've known
Joe for a number of years, and we are good friends, so
we had a very frank discussion. I don't think I
swallowed any koolade, but you be the judge.</div>
<div>First though, I am as guilty as anyone in
reacting to stuff on this discussion list, without
picking up the phone or calling people directly. No
excuse, but modern media at work. I should know, as a
past president of NSRCA, how hard it can be to get to
ground truth sometimes, and to make sure accurate info
is distributed. For that, I apologize.</div>
<div>One thing I didn't realize, was that
until yesterday, Joe was not on this discussion list.
He's primarily used the NSRCA Facebook page. He's
catching up now with all of the discussions here over
the past couple of weeks.</div>
<div>You've probably seen by now the letter on
Mike Harrison and Al Glenn being co-EDs for the NATS.
Joe realizes that decision and clarification had not
been made either to them, the NSRCA BoD, or the
membership, and it wasn't documented on the NSRCA
website. Joe and the BoD are working on remedies to
make sure oversights like that don't happen again. The
BoD meeting was a couple of nights ago, and it was
clarified then, and put out to the membership.</div>
<div>The changes to the format of the NATS was
also discussed. The final format is the EDs call, as
long as it is by the rule book. But as I reminded Joe,
the finals for Masters was eliminated a couple of
years ago to great hue and cry when it was unnecessary
to use the matrix system, and was reinstated the
following year. So tread carefully. He pointed out
that this year's NATS is trying something that hasn't
been done in years, and that some changes happen as a
result. This should have been better communicated to
the membership. The survey that went out yesterday was
to affected entrants to last year's and this year's
NATS. However, if the changes to the finals are
affecting your decision on whether or not to enter the
NATS, I urge you to contact Joe. His email and phone
number are in the back of any KFactor. He did say that
so far the survey is about 80% for the shortened
Masters finals. I don't know though how many responses
he's received. Incidentally, FAI has reverted to a
2-F, 2- unknown finals format, according to Joe.</div>
<div>He realizes that NSRCA and the membership
is in a time crunch for vetting and getting approval
for the new AMA sequences for next year. The BoD first
saw them a few hours before we did, and it became
clear during the BoD meeting that they needed a
separate meeting to discuss and vet them. Significant
discussion centered around the proposal for a Master's
class finals. That isn't contemplated in the Sequence
guide, and there hasn't been any decision on putting
that before the membership or not. According to Joe,
neither he, nor other members of the BoD knew that a
finals sequence would be proposed, total surprise.
Obviously, to get feedback to make necessary changes,
get approval from the membership, final approval by
the BoD and to publish all of the new sequences by
years end is going to be tough. Joe clearly
understands that challenge. In addition, he said he
recalls no discussion one way or the other during the
BoD meeting about distributing what they got from the
sequence committee to the general membership. I told
him I felt that the sooner they get feedback the
better, and he agreed. Constructive feedback to Joe or
your District VP is encouraged. I know there have been
some personal issues that resulted from the
distribution of the sequences, and Joe and others are
working to correct those problems. I hope they can be
resolved also. Those involved will know what I'm
talking about.</div>
<div>It still is not clear to me, and I think
Joe, why the sequences we're developed in such
secrecy. This definitely didn't help the current
controversy. I told Joe that drafts should have been
out months ago for comment. He agreed that this needs
to be the process going forward, and the procedure
guide for developing the sequences may need
clarification for timelines and transparency.</div>
<div>One of the things I faced, and Joe is
facing, is loss of corporate knowledge anytime there
is new leadership in charge. This is especially true
of volunteer organizations with no central office. I
have some things I think can help, and I will make
sure Joe gets them. If you have old files or other
information you think might benefit him or the BoD,
please contact him.</div>
<div>I emphasized to Joe the need for fast
communication on hot topics, even to say they're
working on it, and will get back to us. He gets it,
and I think being on this list he will get and can
react to the hot issues of the moment.</div>
<div>Do I agree with everything Joe said and
the BoDs actions? Of course not; I'd be surprised if I
did. Pattern fliers are, if nothing else, opinionated
SOB's. Can they do better, especially with
communication? Surely, and I think Joe gets that. And
I'm going to try to improve my communication with Joe
and my DVP, Larry Kauffman, before I express
displeasure here.</div>
<div>Jon<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_3804344735994447896aolmail_mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="m_3804344735994447896aolmail_moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="m_3804344735994447896aolmail_moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
NSRCA-<a href="mailto:discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">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></div>
</font>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_3804344735994447896mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="m_3804344735994447896moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="m_3804344735994447896moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br><div>VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot</div><div>Texas A&M University</div><div>PPL - ASEL</div><div>Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107</div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>