<font color='black' size='3' 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 <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
To: Jon Lowe via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><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" 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="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">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">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">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>