<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=content-type content=text/html;charset=US-ASCII>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>We don't need to self insure. We would maintain out affiliation with AMA,
just make our oun rules. As I said earlier, any CD has the right to make changes
from the rule book, as long as they are published in advance. Back in the 80's
there was one club in PA that sponsored an all turnaround meet. They did that
for at least 5 years before AMA made the change. We did not fly any AMA
schedule!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:28:27 EST <A
href="mailto:Rcmaster199@aol.com">Rcmaster199@aol.com</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF">In a message dated 12/8/2002 7:58:03 PM Eastern Standard
Time, vanputte@nuc.net writes:<BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">Subj:<B>Re: Annex Proposal </B><BR>Date:12/8/2002 7:58:03 PM
Eastern Standard Time<BR>From:<A
href="mailto:vanputte@nuc.net">vanputte@nuc.net</A><BR>Reply-to:<A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>To:<A
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR><I>Sent from
the Internet </I><BR><BR><BR><BR>ANDY HERIDER wrote:<BR><BR>>I want to
let you know about another SIG that had trouble with the AMA. The LSF
(League of Silent Flight) a few years back had a riff with the AMA. The AMA
didn't want to listen to the LSF on some of their proposals. The LSF then
retaliated against the AMA by holding their own nationals at a different
location non affiliated with the AMA. The AMA then realized if they didn't
let the LSF make some of their own decisions that they weren't going to have
a AMA soaring nationals. The bottom line is the AMA wants and needs the
revenue generated by the SIG's. If your going to allow one SIG to compile
their own rules, maneuvers, etc. then all of the SIG's should enjoy the same
freedom. We all contribute equally so we should all benefit equally. I think
we have a real good and just arguement. I think that we need to talk to some
of the other SIG's and see exactly how things were done when they were up
against the wall like we are.<BR><BR>We (NSRCA) did this a few years back as
well. When we wanted more <BR>control over the NATS, the AMA blew us
off, so we sponsored the NSRCA <BR>Pan American Championships (NPAC), first
at Lawrenceville, IL and again <BR>at Tullahoma, TN. After that, AMA
caved and we ran our part of the <BR>Nats. I'm not suggesting that we
do another NPAC, but maybe it's time <BR>to remind them that we are willing
and capable of doing something like <BR>NPAC if we feel that our needs
aren't being met by the national <BR>organization.<BR><BR>Ron Van
Putte<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Hi Ron,<BR><BR>I am with you on this issue. We,
the Pattern afficionados, indeed set the precedent in the early 90's with the
two NPAC contests, sponsored, managed and conducted by the NSRCA. I would be
in favor of doing it again if AMA Board members don't see the value of NSRCA's
collective judgement in regards to OUR DISCIPLINE. (CAPS ARE
YELLING!)<BR><BR>We just need to be ready for any insurance issues that may
surface. Based on the NSRCA Dues Cost discussions of the past, I don't think
we, the NSRCA, are ready to self insure <BR><BR>Matt</FONT> </FONT>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>