ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
It is our position to take everyone in the community into account and not just its member as everyone should be heard. When the results of the poll were submitted to the NSRCA BoD, there were both numbers given; those of just current 2011-2012 NSRCA members and all persons who decided to take the poll regardless of affiliation.
Unfortunately the NSRCA should not be polling anyone but its members. I understand the position that you represent pattern as a whole, but that's only partially true. While the NSRCA is the recognized SIG for pattern, the organization should not promote rules proposals that come from or are supported by a non-member majority. I'm not saying that's the case here, I'm speaking in generalities to fix the process for the future. Those who chose not to join NSRCA have other avenues to voice their opinion (as you pointed out), but the NSRCA should not make it their business to seek their opinions because they didn't pay for the ability to be heard within the group. As in any rule-making process (even real laws) special interest groups are formed by like-minded people to have one loud voice instead of a small voice.
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
Jim Quinn, Don Atwood, John Gayer and myself went back through years of BoD Minutes and could not find anything that constituted a 60% rule or a 2/3 majority in order to pass.
I'm aware there is no hard-and-fast "rule." The 2/3 majority was my recommendation for what the rule should be due to the long-lasting ramifications of rules changes.
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
Lastly, the NSRCA does not make the rules, the AMA Precision Aerobatics Contest Board takes care of that. The NSRCA merely submits its findings and suggestions to the AMA Precision Aerobatics Contest Board. On that board, sits a member from each district of AMA.
I'm aware of that, and this is the avenue for those who are not members, and those member who disagree with what the NSRCA chooses to do as a whole.
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
It is quite obvious that ''status-quo'' is doing nothing to improve attendance at competitions or to help our community grow. This can be seen not only in attendence, but how many different manufacturers are building items for pattern and how few of them are gearing advertising dollars to pattern. In actuality, I feel the job of the NSRCA is to promote pattern and look out for the betterment of our sport. Resistance to change is not always the right thing to do.
Well, change just for the sake of change isn't always the right thing either.
ORIGINAL: CLRD2LAND
In my opinion, the NSRCA Rules Committee, as well as the NSRCA BoD, did a great job with these proposals and now it is in the hands of the AMA R/C Precision Aerobatics Contest Board to take our suggestions and move forward by means set forth in the instructions of the AMA itself.
To quote J. Peterman from Seinfeld, "Congradulations on a job... done." Like I said previously, I appreciate the efforts, but given the way we ended up with the proposals, we would have been much better served by the NSRCA if they had just sat out this rules cycle.