<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=590035820-09122002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Perhaps, in the future, we should all submit our own proposals to
the AMA individually and not bother going through the NSRCA. This seems to be
the preferred method.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=590035820-09122002><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Tom
W.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> discussion-request@nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request@nsrca.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tony
Stillman<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 09, 2002 2:39 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
discussion@nsrca.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Annex rules
proposals<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Buddy:<BR><BR>There are no "NSRCA" proposals.
There is no place on the form to send it as such. Each proposal has to
be submitted by a PERSON, not organization with two co-signers.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>This was addressed in the survey, but was left for Ron
to work out the details. Apparently, AMA is using the lack of
completeness issue to not allow it to be submitted. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I don't really know anymore details, other than Ron did
send it to the NSRCA board for input, and received none, at least that's what
he told me. So, perhaps we are all to blame as Ron said.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The issue now is to decide which is the best way to
proceed to get this resolved in our favor. I am not on the NSRCA board
until Jan 15, so the current leadership will have to step in and see what can
be done. Hopefully, and extension of time will be allowed, and some
specific problem issues that AMA has can be addressed and resolved.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tony Stillman<BR>Radio South, Inc.<BR>3702 N. Pace Blvd.<BR>Pensacola, Fl
32505<BR><A
href="http://www.radiosouthrc.com">www.radiosouthrc.com</A><BR>800-962-7802</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=buddybrammer35@hotmail.com
href="mailto:buddybrammer35@hotmail.com">Buddy Brammer</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=discussion@nsrca.org
href="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 09, 2002 11:39
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Annex rules
proposals</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Eric</P>
<P>What is the time line on the revised submission and who will handle the
details?</P>
<P>Will we be allowed time by AMA to accomplish this?</P>
<P>I thought that all of the approved rules change survey items were to be
submitted by NSRCA not as individual personal change request's why was
this not done?</P>
<P>Buddy Brammer</P>
<P>AMA-3889 NSRCA-1810 </P>
<P><BR><BR> </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Henderson,Eric" <ERIC.HENDERSON@GARTNER.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Henderson,Eric" <ERIC.HENDERSON@GARTNER.COM>,
"'discussion@nsrca.org'" <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 12:18:22 -0500
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>-----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>>From: Henderson,Eric
<DIV></DIV>>Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 12:11 PM
<DIV></DIV>>To: 'discussion@nsrca.org'
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Before you all "go off!" on could ask you all to take a
moment to read the
<DIV></DIV>>following
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I spoke with the AMA on this subject.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Please bear in mind that this was submitted as a private
proposal and not an
<DIV></DIV>>NSRCA proposal. The NSRCA survey asked the questions to help
Ron with this
<DIV></DIV>>proposal but the AMA needs a lot more in the actual proposal
to persuade it
<DIV></DIV>>to .change.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The primary reason for the rejection of Ron's proposal was
that the proposal
<DIV></DIV>>was incomplete. In particular it did not appear to address
the following:-
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Schedule design process (we need a system like the exercise
that Troy did
<DIV></DIV>>for example)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Selection of schedule - (K-factor Ballot for example)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Approval process - ( A big issue - who should have this
power?)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Cycle of change that would be applied (Needs to be very
clear)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Which classes would be targeted ( 401-403 stability versus
Masters need
<DIV></DIV>>for refreshing of interest)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Role of AMA Contest board - (This is a big deal for all of
us to
<DIV></DIV>>consider)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>- Annex document printing and management. (Who does this, who
maintains it,
<DIV></DIV>>and on what cycle and at what cost?)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The proposal also needs to have compelling logic to persuade
and achieve
<DIV></DIV>>change. For IMAC they had the need to mirror IAC scale model
emulation.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>My advice is that we should not focus on how hard it may or
may not have
<DIV></DIV>>been to get the AMA to change. To put it in perspective we
have done very
<DIV></DIV>>well with our proposals in the last few years. We lost one in
preliminary
<DIV></DIV>>review and one maneuver.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>We really should focus on what we are trying to fix.To make a
change of this
<DIV></DIV>>nature you need to have a reason that would repair a problem,
cause a
<DIV></DIV>>positive change in attendance at contests etc. Just the fact
that we want
<DIV></DIV>>to do this is not enough - never has been enough!
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Steve Kaluf took it to the AMA board because he was not
comfortable with it
<DIV></DIV>>for the above reasons.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I would suggest that it was not a good approach to get the
discussion list
<DIV></DIV>>all stirred up with this item. It does not work well when you
put ANY person
<DIV></DIV>>or organization in a corner. A better approach would be to
rewrite the
<DIV></DIV>>proposal with all of the above issues addressed. Put it out
for an NSRCA
<DIV></DIV>>(NSRCA members who are AMA members) full vote. Then we can go
to the AMA
<DIV></DIV>>with something that we have voted on, worked on as a group,
and justified
<DIV></DIV>>with a much better democratically and supported proposal.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>The AMA invitation BTW basically is to resubmit with all of
the above
<DIV></DIV>>questions addressed.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Regards,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Eric.
<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* </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>