<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I believe what I posted is the current version. We extracted the
charter from the development guide to be the part that doesn't
change each cycle and to separately address the processes the
committee needs to go through. I was on that sequence committee and
the subsequent one and we didn't change the charter. Which brings us
to the current committee which I really doubt has changed it and if
they have, it hasn't been approved by this board. <br>
Any change would have to be in the book of motions as the board is
required to approve any changes to the document. <br>
<br>
If we take a survey, the haitches will win out.<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017 1:52 PM, Jon Lowe via
NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:15cbcc3d3ee-35d6-1f27a@webprd-a101.mail.aol.com">
<p dir="ltr">When I said it is supposed to be in the charter, the
development guide says "current version" of the charter. I don't
know what the current version is or what it contains. You are
correct in that it doesn't appear to be on the website. Joe
addressed that sort of issue in his email here.</p>
<p dir="ltr">And it's two against one on the correct spelling of
Jon!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Jon (no "h")</p>
<br>
<br>
<hr
style="border:0;height:1px;color:#999;background-color:#999;width:100%;margin:0
0 9px 0;padding:0;"><span style="font-size:14px; color:#999999;">On
Sunday, June 18, 2017 John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion <<span
style="color:#0000A0"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a></span>>
wrote:</span><br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_1.2_acb654fe-aede-42fd-8473-de7351344fc3">
<div text="#3333FF" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" class="aolReplacedBody">
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?<br>
<br>
John<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017 12:53 PM, Jon Lowe
via NSRCA-discussi
on wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="about:blank"><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="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org></a><br>
To: Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><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="AOLMsgPart_1.2_de23fb10-2251-47ee-8c62-bb55428b1a43">
<div class="aolReplacedBody"> 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="aolmail_moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2017
6:25 AM, Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="about:blank">
<div dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">Jon<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="aolmail_mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="aolmail_moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="aolmail_moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
</font> <br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a>
<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>