Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...



                


Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...

Message: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: "Allyson Parker-Lauck" <princess70 at earthlink.net>

Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:59:47 UTC


Message:

Virginia:
Actually, the minutes don't really state that 2002 will be a trial year and that the Primary category.  There was no motion made to that effect, and the statement to which you refer was simply one sentence in the "Discussion" section on that motion.  The exact wording is: "It was suggested to make the change, test it for the year and revisit it for 2003".  That could have just been one suggestion from one Board Member, not necessarily making it an "action item" for the next meeting.

The way I see it, it will be up to a Board Member or the Rules Committee Chair to see that a review of the category/sequence is actually included in the agenda.  

For those who oppose this sequence:
The rule is a done deal for this year.  Clubs can request supplemental rules or rule waivers, as Jim Nahom has said that his club is going to do.  If you do submit a request for a supplemental rule or rule waiver and it is denied, make sure to ask if the supplemental rule was reviewed by the entire Contest Sanctioning Committee.  Current practice is that if supplemental rules or rule waivers are not controversial, then the IAC President has the authority to approve them alone.  If the supplements/waivers are controversial then the request should be reviewed by the entire Sanctioning Committee (a good example would be the Blind Man's Bluff Contest, whose rule waivers/supplements are always reviewed by the Sanctioning Committee - and have always been approved).

But another way to go about making a long term change for those interested, would be to submit a rules change to Brian Howard asking for the spin to be put back into the sequence and/or the half-Cuban removed.  When submitting a rules change proposal, it is always most effective to re-write the rule as you'd like it to be changed and further include a rationale and synopsis for the Rules Committee to review.  That way they don't have to read minds and guess what you may have meant.

I don't think too many people are upset about the name change... it appears to me as if it's the deletion of the spin and the introduction of the half-Cuban.  Submit a rules change and make sure EACH AND EVERY board member and the Rules Committee Chairman (Brian Howard) hears from you before the Fall Board of Directors Meeting next year.

Yes, you can rely on one person to be your champion; however, if every Board Member knows that they have to answer to you after the Board Meeting, it makes your chances of affecting change much more likely.

Always remember, in almost every organization, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Be the squeaky wheel WHEN IT COUNTS, which is before Rules Changes are voted on.  Even though it's apparent that many of those who strongly oppose the new category did so at the appropriate time, keep in mind that this was not a big discussion topic on the Exploder last summer/fall when these were still just PROPOSALS.  The discussion has now been stirred up now that it's set in stone in the red book.

Even though I do have my own opinions about the sequence, that's not the intent of this email.  I served on the Board for several years and have learned the way to make sure things get done.  I just wanted to share that with the rest of you.

Take care,
Allyson Parker-Lauck
IAC #15590




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Virginia M. Jacobson 
  To: IAC, EXPLODER 
  Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:48 PM
  Subject: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution


  Thank You Jeffery

  Your points and views are well taken and after reviewing the minutes form the BOD meeting last fall I have a little different out look on the IAC and how the over all process works. I think you have explained it quite well and shed new light in areas I have not seen before. I still believe in the people we have elected and still trust in their opinions and judgment. 

  The minutes did state that 2002 was to be a trial year for the new Primary category and it is to be revisited again in 2003. 
  I believe we should fly the season, give it a shake and see what happens. Like I stated in an earlier post I believe there is far less danger for beginners entering our sport than there is from the rouge pilots that plague us every year.

  Virginia Jacobson
  IAC#18076
  VP CH-88
  National Judge



  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Hi Virginia,

    Your points are well made about the BOD being a dedicated, hard working, 
    VOLUNTARY bunch of folks.  But the BOD is not a democratic organization.  Yes, 
    they are elected, but as the last election ballot clearly showed (and it was 
    very typical of past ballots), there is no real way to know what stances a 
    candidate will take on specific issues.  Directors are under no moral, ethical 
    or other dictate to follow the wishes of their "constituency."  BOD members do 
    have personal agendas; that's one reason why they agree to participate in the 
    thankless process.  Take for example the recent fervor over bonus points in 
    Unlimited.  This was never even put out to the membership for comment.  It was, 
    however, a hot item on the personal agenda of several BOD members.  And it 
    passed without general membership feedback.

    Our current IAC president has some very strong personal feelings about the 
    direction he wants this organization to move towards.  Strong enough that he 
    has committed to make the personal sacrifices required to pursue his agenda.  I 
    don't neccessarily agree with several of his stances, but he is the President 
    and wields significant influence as such.  And there's ultimately little else I 
    can do about it other than voice my opinion to him and whoever else will 
    listen.  Come next election, he will probably run un-opposed.  It's a thankless 
    job.  I don't have the resources to run.  Dollars are the only real vote that 
    we as members have.  As the organization moves further away from the desires of 
    the general membership, fewer people will participate.

    I too would very much like to know how many directors receive direct input from 
    members and how that influences their voting.  My feeling is that they don't 
    receive much feedback and that they vote according to their own agendas.  It's 
    the nature of the beast.  Unless the general membership gets involved with the 
    approval process on specific issues, it will always be that way.  And that's 
    not likely to happen.  The reality is that if I feel strongly enough about an 
    issue, the only way that I can really do something about is get myself elected 
    on the BOD; then I have a voice.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter about 
    this.  I recognize that this is how our organization works, and I still choose 
    to play.  

    Jeffery Poehlmann
    President Ch 107

    > 
    > Like I said I'm glad to hear that people did follow the process. Most people
    > who bitch about something don't.
    > 
    > The question I would like to see an answer to is how many negative comments
    > were received by the other directors and were these
    > comments in the majority or the minority when the topic was brought up at
    > the BOD meeting?
    > 
    > I still would like to think that our BOD acted in accordance with the
    > majority of the feedback they received and not because they or someone on
    > the BOD had a personal agenda. Several of you are working very hard to shake
    > our faith in the integrity of our BOD. If enough evidence is presented that
    > this is indeed the case than perhaps something should be done about it,
    > otherwise I still will believe in the HONESTY and INTEGRITY of  those we
    > elected to the BOD.
    > 
    > Can any of the other regional directors comment on what kind of feedback
    > they had in regards to the then proposed Primary category by the time the
    > BOD meeting took place last fall?
    > 
    > Virginia Jacobson
    > IAC#18076
    > VPCh-88
    > National Judge
    > 
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ---------------------------------------------------------------
    > Yes, we certainly did!!   We had several directors meetings that ended up
    > in the late hours of the night discussing this very topic that resulted in a
    > written
    > response to the proposal.   Our response also included phone calls to both
    > headquarters
    > as well as calls to our regional director Tom Myers.  Several calls were
    > made to our neighboring clubs in California, (one of which Jim Nahom is a
    > member) and they submitted a response as well.   All of the clubs in this
    > area opposed the rule, which is one reason Tom Myers opposed the rule at the
    > BOD meeting.
    > 
    > 
    > Chuck Graves
    > IAC 69, BOD Member
    > 
    > 
    > 



Attachement 1: part2.html


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn