<!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 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I agree with you. Hopefully, we will find a way to
get it put back in their hands in a form that they will agree to so that we can
accomplish what we set out to do.</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 7:50
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Annex rules proposals</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Tony</P>
<P>Thanks I think that I understand the problem now, But I cannot understand
why Ron/we are being made aware of it at this late date AMA has had the
proposal in front of them for two month's It just seems that this is some sort
of squeeze play. If it is not then AMA should graciously allow Ron/Us equal
time to submitt the required revisions. I sincerely hope that they will It
will surely simplify matters for both of us.</P>
<P>Buddy <BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Tony Stillman" <TONY@RADIOSOUTHRC.COM>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>>To: <DISCUSSION@NSRCA.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:39:01 -0600
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Buddy:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>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.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>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.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>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.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>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.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Tony Stillman
<DIV></DIV>>Radio South, Inc.
<DIV></DIV>>3702 N. Pace Blvd.
<DIV></DIV>>Pensacola, Fl 32505
<DIV></DIV>>www.radiosouthrc.com
<DIV></DIV>>800-962-7802
<DIV></DIV>> ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>> From: Buddy Brammer
<DIV></DIV>> To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:39 AM
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: RE: Annex rules proposals
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Eric
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> What is the time line on the revised submission and who will
handle the details?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Will we be allowed time by AMA to accomplish this?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> 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?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Buddy Brammer
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> AMA-3889 NSRCA-1810
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >From: "Henderson,Eric"
<DIV></DIV>> >Reply-To: discussion@nsrca.org
<DIV></DIV>> >To: "Henderson,Eric" , "'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></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
MSN 8 helps <A href="http://g.msn.com/8HMHEN/2023">ELIMINATE E-MAIL
VIRUSES.</A> Get 2 months FREE*. </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>