<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Good afternoon all,<div class="">I appreciate the points being brought up and will certainly work hard to ensure that all guidelines and requirements are met. I must admit, it’s been difficult searching for information myself, let alone folks who are seeking guidance that are not directly involved in making decisions that affect all of us. This fact alone has been a core driver in my decision to become involved in the organization in more direct way.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Now, that said, we need to find a path forward that works for the organization as a whole, and of course the entirety of the membership. There are innumerable points that we can all get mired in, debate and get irritated about, but my primary interest is gathering all legacy information, previous comments, new input, etc., and match the task of clearly documenting and organizing that information into a useful, and user friendly format. This serves not only my personal needs to know where to look, but also serves the membership by having all information and resources at our fingertips.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This effort has started with an overhaul of the website. Through no individual’s actions, the previous life of the website became a repository of bits and pieces of these resources, rather than a lean and clear source of information. Many of these resources are quite useful and had been meticulously created by NSRCA members over the years. Unfortunately, some of documents conflict each other and some are silent on issues that need direction or clarity. Some procedural requirements are missing all together. Derek Koopowitz has generously donated countless hours of his personal time and financial resources to develop and maintain the web presence. His efforts should be commended! Peter Vogel has spent just as much time developing and refining content for the website. What we really need now is a few folks with an eye for detail and are tuned in to procedures and rules to assist in vetting the information that we have posted and help create a more comprehensive resource that has reliable information and links to other regulatory agencies that affect our procedures. This is a giant task that would go to serve us all well in the end.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You may ask why I am talking about the website in relation to the sequences or the format of the Nats topics du jour. Well, it’s all related at the core of the issues at hand, information. Many of the points that have been brought up in these discussion forums are completely reasonable points. We need to get to a place where we are able to distance the points that are being made from the distracting emotions. For those that have read my articles in the K-Factor, this theme has been clear and consistent. I’ve also directly reached out and asked for folks to email me personally (via the K-Factor articles) with any legacy information that they feel is missing from the site or the decisions they see that are being made. We have an opportunity to make course corrections pretty easily in most cases to adjust the path of a project, task, or procedure, but this requires assistance from the entire membership. It especially requires the long term members who have served in these previous capacities to contribute.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am always seeking passionate volunteers to devote their skills and energy towards making the processes better. I commit to keeping the NSRCA on a forward trajectory by doing my best to ensure that decisions are followed through with and tasks are completed. Clearly things will be missed, and I’m certainly not claiming perfection. I am seeking assistance though. Are you willing to contribute to a solution to help keep the NSRCA organized, accessible and responsive to the needs and desires of the membership? If so, please reach out to me directly and I’m happy to work together to forge a plan that benefits all of us. I appreciate the extra effort that Jon Lowe made to speak with me directly and help turn a situation he was unhappy about into a productive strategy to make it better. I’m available (mostly…), and I invite folks to give me a ring. Let’s talk it out and develop a solution together. “The Board” is not a secret society of folks looking to destroy what we have, it’s a group of folks who have volunteered their personal time to help make our weekend fun with toy airplanes more enjoyable by alleviating the general membership of daunting task of organization. Please reach out to your DVP’s and help them communicate concerns and ideas that can be formally presented to the Board for discussion and approval.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best,</div><div class="">Joe Walker,</div><div class="">NSRCA President</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 18, 2017, at 12:47 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class="">+1. Thank you John. Just as a side note. I was on the Sequence Committee for the previous 2 cycles. I was not informed in any way that I would not still be on the Sequence Committee. I was also very surprised that the BOD appointed a Chairperson who had never participated in the process before. In the past, I believe, the Chair always came from the existing Committee.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Tony Frackowiak</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div class="">On Jun 18, 2017, at 9:21 AM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="">
Jon,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<font color="#000066" class="">4 Suggested Sequence Submittal Process<br class="">
The following is the recommended timeline for the development and
submission of new sequences. Sequence<br class="">
development should always start in two years prior to when the
sequence is to be replaced. For example, if the<br class="">
Masters sequence (2 year lifecycle) is to be replaced in 2015 (X)
then work on the development of a new<br class="">
sequence should start in 2013 (X – 2). What follows is a timeline
showing the activity (task) and the month the<br class="">
activity should start:<br class="">
TASK TIMELINE<br class="">
Assign and approve Committee Chairperson October - year X – 2<br class="">
Committee Chairperson recruits Committee Membership October – year
X - 2<br class="">
BoD approves Committee Membership November – year X - 2<br class="">
Establish development schedule December – year X - 2<br class="">
Review design criteria/receive BoD approval for changes December –
year X - 2<br class="">
Develop preliminary changes/sequences and flight test January
through March – year X - 1<br class="">
Publish for public comment on NSRCA website/K-Factor April through
May – year X - 1<br class="">
Finalize changes/sequence selection based on comments June through
August – year X - 1<br class="">
Submit proposed changes/sequences to BoD for approval October–
year X - 1<br class="">
Publish approved sequences on NSRCA website/K-Factor November –
year X -1<br class="">
New sequences in use January – year X<br class="">
<br class="">
<font color="#3366ff" class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
There is another section in this document that addresses the
makeup of the committee and the oversight function of the board.<br class="">
<br class="">
<font class="">2.3 Membership<br class="">
There should be at least six Committee members excluding the
Chairperson and should, if possible, contain at<br class="">
least one member who is currently competing in each of the AMA
classes. There should be representation from<br class="">
as many NSRCA districts as possible on the committee. Non
pilots and non NSRCA members may be<br class="">
committee members, provided that their qualifications meet the
approval of the Chairperson and the BoD. The<br class="">
Committee shall contain at least one current member of the
BoD. All members of the Committee are voting<br class="">
members.<br class="">
<br class="">
2.5.1 Standard Committee Procedures<br class="">
• The NSRCA President shall be the primary point of contact
for communications between the<br class="">
Committee Chairperson and the Board on all matters of
directive nature, and for deliverables from<br class="">
the Committee.<br class="">
• The Chairperson will select members for his/her committee
and propose a team to the BoD.<br class="">
• The BoD will review the Committee for national (District)
balance and representation across<br class="">
Intermediate through Masters Classes and, if necessary,
provide recommendations on the<br class="">
Committee members to the Chairperson. The BoD will then vote
to accept or reject the proposed<br class="">
Committee members.<br class="">
• The Chairperson and Committee members agree to work as a
team and reach a consensus on the<br class="">
Committee’s proposals. They agree to support the Committee’s
proposal and not submit separate<br class="">
proposals on these sequences to the BoD.<br class="">
• The Committee shall perform their tasks within the schedule
of milestones as defined by the BoD.<br class="">
• The Committee will produce proposed changes to sequences
based on input from the membership<br class="">
and their experience. The sequences will be published in the K
Factor and on the NSRCA website<br class="">
for review.<br class="">
• The Committee will coordinate with the Rules/Judging
Committee Chairperson to produce the<br class="">
final proposals, with supporting rationale, to be approved by
the BoD.<br class="">
• Sequences for Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced and Masters
Class will be developed for<br class="">
presentation to and review by the precision aerobatics
community on the NSRCA website. New<br class="">
sequences may not necessarily be presented for all classes.<br class="">
<br class="">
<font color="#3366ff" class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
John Gayer<br class="">
</font></font></font></font><br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017 6:25 AM, Jon Lowe via
NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:15cbb2a0281-35d6-1e572@webprd-a101.mail.aol.com" class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">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.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">Jon<br class="">
<br class="">
</p>
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
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 class="">
</div>
<span class=""><NSRCA_Pattern_Sequence_Development_Committee_Charter_Rev1p1_10-01-12.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br class="">NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br class=""><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" class="">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" class="">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br class="">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>