<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Ron, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks for the excellent info. You are much closer to this than I. In my note to the CB I asked about the value that they bring to the process. Clearly one value is that they have the confidence of the EC and that a process that doesn't include them will not be approved. My question still stands, but this one value may be sufficient to base a new proposal, taking into account this current reality.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Sometimes you need to get as much of your agenda implemented as possible and not hold out for high risk things. If this is the only "compromise" than maybe this is a way out. Then we can focus on integrating the contest board in our process.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">--Lance</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Ron Van Putte <vanputte@nuc.net></b></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: discussion-request@nsrca.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">12/10/2002 03:37 PM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to discussion</font>
<br>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To: discussion@nsrca.org, Fuqua John D Contr AAC/YAA <john.fuqua@eglin.af.mil></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc: </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject: Re: Improving the bureaucracy</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>s.vannostrand@kodak.com wrote:<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>> It would be hard for me to believe that the AMA EC did not include the<br>
> contest board because of the perception that the board is either<br>
> incompetent or incapable of doing the right thing. The AMA EC must have<br>
> logical reasons for its actions, even if we don't know them. As an<br>
> outsider, I must rely on the proper communication channels in the<br>
> organization: our SIG officers.<br>
><br>
> If these officers don't know the reasons for the EC behavior, or why they<br>
> are reacting this way, then the key linking officers need to make some<br>
> phone calls and find out, then communicate to the rest of us what we need<br>
> to know. I don't see how becoming offended will help, if there are facts<br>
> that still need to be learned.<br>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>I am the author of the annex proposal. I am also the NSRCA vice<br>
president. After I found out about the AMA Executive Council vote on<br>
rejecting the proposal last Friday, I talked with Steve Kaluf. Then I<br>
talked with Dave Brown. Both calls were lengthy. Both said that the<br>
proposal was not detailed enough and both said that a compromise would<br>
be possible, but that any compromise would have to include an annex<br>
approval process by the contest board. In a private discussion with<br>
John Fuqua, I learned that he had talked with Steve Kaluf in early<br>
October, right after the proposal was received. Apparently Steve told<br>
John that he was concerned with the proposal and he thought the EC would<br>
probably stop further action on the proposal if it made it through the<br>
contest board's initial vote. John told Steve that he didn't want the<br>
proposal to go all the way through the initial vote, only to be<br>
rejected. He suggested that Steve take it to the EC before the initial<br>
vote. Two months later Steve did take it to the EC. This is how we got<br>
where we are.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Ron Van Putte<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>=====================================<br>
# To be removed from this list, send a message to<br>
# discussion-request@nsrca.org<br>
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.<br>
#<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>
</tt></font>
<br>
<br>