<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Ron </P>
<P>After re-reading your post several times and reviewing the AMA rules change proceedure I cannot find a place where it says that the president or execuative council have the right or authority to remove a proposal such as you have described can you enlighten me on where this is written.</P>
<P>Buddy<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Ron Van Putte <VANPUTTE@NUC.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:18:24 -0600
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Emory Schroeter wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>Do you have any email address for these board members? I'd love to
<DIV></DIV>>>write
<DIV></DIV>>>them a little note and let them know how I feel about their
<DIV></DIV>>>decisions. I
<DIV></DIV>>>would like to know why the annex is fine for IMAC, but not for us.
<DIV></DIV>>>Are they
<DIV></DIV>>>somehow better able to decide their sequences? I would imagine few,
<DIV></DIV>>>if any
<DIV></DIV>>>of these board members fly pattern (I know Dave Brown once flew
<DIV></DIV>>>pattern).
<DIV></DIV>>>So, what is their problem?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The Executive Council members' email addresses are in header of
<DIV></DIV>>their Model Aviation columns.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The 'sticking point' appears to be their loss of control of the
<DIV></DIV>>maneuvers and sequences. I agree that IMAC already has the freedom
<DIV></DIV>>we want and the Council does not want to relinquish any more
<DIV></DIV>>control.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Ron Van Putte
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>>From: "Ron Van Putte" <VANPUTTE@NUC.NET>
<DIV></DIV>>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>>Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 3:46 PM
<DIV></DIV>>>Subject: Annex Proposal
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>I sent the following two messages to the NSRCA board yesterday for
<DIV></DIV>>>>comment. After you've read the messages, you will see why 'time
<DIV></DIV>>>>is of
<DIV></DIV>>>>the essence'. Since the board members have already had the
<DIV></DIV>>>>information
<DIV></DIV>>>>for more than a day, I thought it was time to make subscribers of
<DIV></DIV>>>>the
<DIV></DIV>>>>NSRCA Discussion List aware of what was happening regarding the
<DIV></DIV>>>>annex
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposal so that there's some time for appropriate comment and
<DIV></DIV>>>>action.
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>The first - 12/6/02, 9:51 A.M.
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>"I just got a call from Steve Kaluf (AMA's Competition Director).
<DIV></DIV>>>>Steve
<DIV></DIV>>>>told me that the annex proposal had been reviewed by the AMA
<DIV></DIV>>>>Executive
<DIV></DIV>>>>Council and they were taking a vote about whether to reject it out
<DIV></DIV>>>>of
<DIV></DIV>>>>hand, without sending it to the contest board. The deadline for
<DIV></DIV>>>>the
<DIV></DIV>>>>vote is next Monday, but the voting is strongly for rejecting the
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposal. He offered me a compromise - if I withdraw the
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposal, we
<DIV></DIV>>>>would be given the opportunity for submitting multiple sets of
<DIV></DIV>>>>maneuver
<DIV></DIV>>>>schedules, like FAI has for F3A schedules. I offered him a
<DIV></DIV>>>>compromise -
<DIV></DIV>>>>insert a contest board veto in the process before maneuver
<DIV></DIV>>>>schedule
<DIV></DIV>>>>publication. I am going to call Dave Brown and discuss this with
<DIV></DIV>>>>him. I
<DIV></DIV>>>>wanted you to know what was going on because, even though I am the
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposer, I did it for NSRCA, based on the rules survey results."
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>The second - 12/6/02, 2:42 P.M.
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>"I had a long talk with Dave Brown. As written, the annex
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposal is
<DIV></DIV>>>>dead. We talked about possible compromises. The only one I was
<DIV></DIV>>>>able to
<DIV></DIV>>>>support is to rewrite the proposal to include Contest Board
<DIV></DIV>>>>approval of
<DIV></DIV>>>>whatever changes to the maneuver descriptions or maneuver
<DIV></DIV>>>>schedules we
<DIV></DIV>>>>come up with. The board approval would extend the time required
<DIV></DIV>>>>for the
<DIV></DIV>>>>change process to be accomplished. We would have to give AMA at
<DIV></DIV>>>>least
<DIV></DIV>>>>60 days to approve what we would want to publish. This means we'd
<DIV></DIV>>>>have
<DIV></DIV>>>>to get the changes to the board by about the Nats time frame to
<DIV></DIV>>>>make an
<DIV></DIV>>>>October 1st publication date.
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>"One big point he made was that the annex proposal should be
<DIV></DIV>>>>withdrawn
<DIV></DIV>>>>before the final AMA Executive Council vote was accepted on
<DIV></DIV>>>>whether to
<DIV></DIV>>>>reject the proposal. That date is next Monday. He said that it
<DIV></DIV>>>>would
<DIV></DIV>>>>be more difficult to submit an urgent rule change annex proposal
<DIV></DIV>>>>if the
<DIV></DIV>>>>vote deadline to reject it had passed. As the proposer, I would
<DIV></DIV>>>>really
<DIV></DIV>>>>like to have the Council go on record as rejecting the annex
<DIV></DIV>>>>proposal.
<DIV></DIV>>>>As an NSRCA member who would like the annex proposal to pass, that
<DIV></DIV>>>>would
<DIV></DIV>>>>probably not be the best option.
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>"Comments?"
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>Roin Van Putte
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>>>># To be removed from this list, send a message to
<DIV></DIV>>>># discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>>>#
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>>># To be removed from this list, send a message to #
<DIV></DIV>>>discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>>#
<DIV></DIV>>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>=====================================
<DIV></DIV>># To be removed from this list, send a message to #
<DIV></DIV>>discussion-request@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>># and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
<DIV></DIV>>#
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>The new <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2018">MSN 8:</a> smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* </html>