 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / May 2006First Day of NSL, the space time continuum is still A-OK
It's the first day of NSL, and the space time continuum is still A-OK I predict it will stay A-OK for the rest of the week... I guess those evil motors did not yet distort time and space ;) Cranny "I found Brandi tonight" Dane Cranny Dane quipped: > It's the first day of NSL, and the space time continuum is still A-OK > I predict it will stay A-OK for the rest of the week... > I guess those evil motors did not yet distort time and space ;) Delta motors were indeed flown, safely and successfully. The only question heard from the representatives from the McGregor Fire Department was "would you like extra sauce on your sandwich?" James __________________________ James Duffy jduffy@mac.com but did you inform your landowner? I also noticed that the flyoffs weren't on the website schedule.... Ask TR what he declared these motors as when he imported them James and then get back to us? terry dean > Cranny Dane quipped: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > James Duffy > jduffy@mac.com > Cranny Dane quipped: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > question heard from the representatives from the McGregor Fire > Department was "would you like extra sauce on your sandwich?" Frankly I do not see that you all should get cocky about it. Yes these motors are apparently like 1/2 A's and their power amounts to 1/2 of a mouse fart. So big deal. I personally do not feel there can be any harm by using the motors for practice for international competition. However the more I read the facts of how this came about, the more concerned I am. I would love to see each party involved point to the specific area of the NAR bylaws that supports their position. Both sides have claimed the NAR bylaws support their position. Any takers?  Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com > However the more I read the facts of how this came about, the more > concerned I am. I would love to see each party involved point to the > specific area of the NAR bylaws that supports their position. Both > sides have claimed the NAR bylaws support their position. Just posted to the section list. Article 3, section 8. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> However the more I read the facts of how this came about, the more >> concerned I am. I would love to see each party involved point to the >> specific area of the NAR bylaws that supports their position. Both >> sides have claimed the NAR bylaws support their position. > > Just posted to the section list. Article 3, section 8. Yep saw it. Not good enough. See my reply. Sorry! It appears what was done was on the up & up after all. Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com greg: I'm not even sure the NAR bylaws come into question here. One of the precedent reasons the NAr gave for allowing these uncertfied motors to be used is that back in the early 90's I guess the NARBOT issued a new policy that allowed MANUFACTURERS to do demo flights of uncertfied motors at venues like NARAM and such. These demo motors eventually became certfied motors, and these motors did undergo the USDOT explosives testing process, adhered to the CPSC marking and labeling requirements,etc and a big PLUS: they were made by USA rocket manufactuers that holf extensive liability insurance. I think relying on this precedent is like comparing apples and oranges. In this new policy decision, Selective NAR members at selective times and places will be allowed to use never-certified motors, which haven't gone thru the USDOT explosives testing process nor adhere to the CPSC marking and labeling requirements. And they are made by a East Euopean person on his kitchen top, or in his basement or in his garage, who has no liability insurance, so if the motor cato's and takes your eye out..well..you do the math... Another rationale that the NAR President cited in his response, was that these motors are "certfied" by the FAI NAC's :(National Aerosport Club- here in the US, the AMA is the NAC) , and that this "certfication" is as good as the NAR-TRA-CAR certfication tetsting regime. Again he is comparing apples and oranges. The FAI ONLY certifies model rocket motors at their WSMC; World Space Modeling Championships, which you can think of as a super-naram. This WSMC is ONLY held once every 2 years. The so-called certfication testing process usually involves the selection of 1 motors from one country that is actually tested. In the 20+ FAI World Cups events held each year, the motor are NOT tested. They are used on a "honour" basis. It is TRUE, when Mark Bundick says the FAI NAC's of each country certfiy their own motors: but again this testing regime is no where near what is required by NFPA 1125. And to compare them as being equivalent, is just not factual. And finally these motors being used in FAI competition are mostly made to order : they are not availble on the retails shelves of hobby stores in the Czech republic or anywhere else. Next year when the USA Team FAI Spacemodeling Flyoff's are held at NARAM-49, or NSL 2007, these events may be held in states in which we know for sure that NFPA 1122/1125 are in effect. (unlike this years NSL2006, where they are not in effect so no fire codes were broken). Would it be the ultimate irony that the NAr who helps make the NFPA fire codes for us all, allows these same fire codes to be broken. The NAR response to this is: we are not an enforcement agency. We do not enforce nfpa fire codes (thats for the local or state fire marshal to do), we do not enforce USDOT (thats for USDOT enforcemnt to do) and we do not enforce CPSC(thats for CPSC enforcement to do)... This policy decision is playing with fire that just might consume us all... terry dean >>> However the more I read the facts of how this came about, the more >>> concerned I am. I would love to see each party involved point to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yep saw it. Not good enough. See my reply. Sorry! It appears > what was done was on the up & up after all. > In this new policy decision, Selective NAR members at selective times and > places will be allowed to use never-certified motors, which haven't gone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > insurance, so if the motor cato's and takes your eye out..well..you do the > math... At least one board member has told me that at the board meeting, it was discussed that only site owner coverage would be in effect when these motors were used, and that individuals would ave no coverage when they flew uncertified motors. > Next year when the USA Team FAI Spacemodeling Flyoff's are held at NARAM-49, > or NSL 2007, these events may be held in states in which we know for sure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > enforcemnt to do) and we do not enforce CPSC(thats for CPSC enforcement to > do)... Something that any NAR member or section thinking of hosting an NSL or NARAM should consider. Even the manufacturer demo policy, which is NOT applicable to these motors unless Jiri is here to personally fly them, still gives the event RSO the right to say "NO". Any responsible NAR member should "just say NO" to allowing "selected members" to fly any motor that is not on the combined motor certification list. That is their job. I'm disappointed that the folks running NSL 2006 didn't do so. I'm disappointed that the participants at NSL 2006 didn't voice their disgust and walk off the range. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! Bob, The people running NSL had a letter in the right hand from the BOD stating that the motors were allowed. The same trusties that WE had elected into the BOD. In the left hand it was a few emails and internet rants from two or three NAR members. The only real power that the Delta motors has was to twist a few panties into a really big wad. I mean geez guys... This is a hobby... and they were 1/2A motors. They flew this weekend at NSL and there were NO problem. Armageddon did not happen... Death and distruction did not rain down from the heavens. I don't even think that there was one thing said about the FAI testing going on behind us. I really don't think this really has anything to do with the motors themselves. I think that it has to be one of two things... 1. A polital agenda by a few that have personal problem with the BOD. This is thier way of getting back at them. 2. Since Jerry Irvine is gone yall have to have someone to rant on. It looks like the BOD just happened to walk in front of the target while everyone was looking for a new box to stand on. Tim Sapp "Wish I had gotten to see one of the Panty Wadding motors." Tim, As far as how this relates to reality, I couldn't agree with you more. However, in the NAR world, my understanding is that people have been tossed out for doing this. I think everyone should be able to agree that the same rules apply to everyone on an issue as hot as this one. If they have rules that only applied to some people, there's bound to be some consternation. Phil >Bob, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Tim Sapp >"Wish I had gotten to see one of the Panty Wadding motors." > As far as how this relates to reality, I couldn't agree with you more. > However, in the NAR world, my understanding is that people have been > tossed out for doing this. I think everyone should be able to agree > that the same rules apply to everyone on an issue as hot as this one. > If they have rules that only applied to some people, there's bound to > be some consternation. The NAR has been a model of well thought out consistemt policies for years. Until March. Double standards, and different rules for different people is what I expected from the TRA board of the mid 90s, not the NAR board of the mid 00s. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > 1. A polital agenda by a few that have personal problem with the BOD. > This is thier way of getting back at them. If that's what you want to call it. The board has repeatedly defered all things regarding motor certification to NAR S&T. This time S&T was not consulted, and the board voted to authorize selected members to violate the safety code by flying uncertified motors. This is a scary precedent for our association, and one that should not be allowed to stand. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > The people running NSL had a letter in the right hand from the BOD > stating that the motors were allowed. The same trusties that WE had > elected into the BOD. That doesn't make it right. I've stood up to the board before over the NAR Safety Code. Every NAR member that's ever flown an HPR rocket at an NAR event has benefited from the changes I forced them to make. I'm not afraid to do so again. > The only real power that the Delta motors has was to twist a few > panties into a really big wad. I mean geez guys... This is a > hobby... and they were 1/2A motors. I'm not at all worried about a few A motors. I'm worried that it jeopardized our insurance coverage for this event. I'm worried that it sets a dangerous precedent. I'm worried the the board violated the regulations they are responsible to uphold. > I really don't think this really has anything to do with the motors > themselves. I think that it has to be one of two things... You're absolutely right. > 1. A polital agenda by a few that have personal problem with the BOD. > This is thier way of getting back at them. If that's what you want to call it. I know everyone on the board, and I'd say all are my friends. I appreciate most of the work they do for us. I just think they made an astronomical mistake this time around. One that jeopardizes the future of the association. The board has repeatedly defered all things regarding motor certification to NAR S&T. This time S&T was not consulted, and the board voted to authorize selected members to violate the safety code by flying uncertified motors. This is a scary precedent for our association, and one that should not be allowed to stand. If the board had defered to S&T as it has done in the past, and S&T decided that everything was in order with this request, than I'd say it was fine. In fact, if the board boes back and allows S&T to do its job, as it should have done in the first place, I'll be fine with this. It just wasn't done the right way, and sets a bad precedence. One that is in conflict with the NAR Safety Code and NAR Bylaws. The board should DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT. In the same meeting, the board refused to even consider three other proposals regarding motor certifications. One that comes up year after year, but gets turned down every time. The EXACT argument that they use to deny that request applies to these A motors: there is no liability insurance behind them. Yet, given the same concerns, we have the opposite decision. > 2. Since Jerry Irvine is gone yall have to have someone to rant on. It > looks like the BOD just happened to walk in front of the target while > everyone was looking for a new box to stand on. Well, the ruling they just made sure leaves the door wide open for Jerry to make uncertified motors for the US team, just as he's offered to do in the past. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! bob: speaking of insurance, I sent an email to the NAR Insurnace rep and pointed out some information that he may have not been made aware of, ie the USDOT and CPSC issues,etc and here is the response I got back: "In my opinion, the only issue that would affect the coverage would be whether or not the use of these motors constituted a violation of the NAR safety codes. If the NAR organization has indeed approved the usage of these motors then there should be no violation and there should be no issue with coverage during an NAR sponsored activity." His logic is that the NARBOT would ONLY do something in which there would be no violation of the NAR MRSC. How did he come to this conculsion, simple, Mark Bundick lead him to believe that: Q. What are the potential or actual insurance implications of this new policy? A. Because the matter raised insurance concerns, I discussed it directly with Bob Blomster, our agent. He confirmed my reading of the policy and understanding of the coverage. Theres no doubt in my mind, that Mark Bundick was going to implement and ok this new policy decision no matter what. I also have no doubt, that Mark Bundick mislead Bob as to the true facts, in other words, he "spun" the facts and the argument in his own favor from the beginning. He used exactly the same "spin" technique on the NARBOT when it was brought before them. If you look at the minutes of that NARBOT meeting which I will reproduce below, you will see that their was no dicussion on this issue at all: US Team Practice with Uncertified Motors - US Spacemodeling Team Manager John Langford asked the Board to allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team Practice sessions. US Teams previously competed at a severe disadvantage to foreign competitors due to lack of opportunities to practice with FAI competition motors. The Board reviewed the testing protocols used by the FAI prior to World Championship events. Such testing is certainly rigorous enough to insure both performance and safety. The Board approved the request by unanimous vote. Motion by Jay Apt: Seconded by Joyce Guzik The NAR board of trustee's authorizes selected members of the US Internat team to allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team Practice sessions. Motion approved. It appears from the NARBOT minutes, that the only discussion was about how FAI certfication testing was on par with current NAR/TRA/CAR certfication testing, which in another post in this thread, I have already pointed out, is simply not factual. Again, It appears that Mark shaded the truth somewhat, or spun the facts to his favor, which I might add, he is a master at. You will also notice that from the above minutes, no NARBOT members raised any issues or concerns, there seems to be NO discussion of the possible impacts this policy would have to NFPA,USDOT or current CPSC regulations. simply amazing.... terry dean There are no insurance coverage issues presented by this new policy. >> In this new policy decision, Selective NAR members at selective times >> and [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > disappointed that the participants at NSL 2006 didn't voice their disgust > and walk off the range. Were you there? How do you know what discussion there was or wasn't? FYI meeting minutes are a synopsis and do not include every detail of every discussion. Also, a board commonly discusses an issue and comes to a consensus - which leads to a unanimous vote. Phil >It appears from the NARBOT minutes, that the only discussion was about how >FAI certfication testing was on par with current NAR/TRA/CAR certfication [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >terry dean phil: for several years now I have been complaning to the NARBot about not following the bylaws per their minutes is concerned....and everytime you have jumped on me saying its is unimportnat: from the NARBOT minutes: "Specific Publication of Financials and Minutes - The Board agreed with Terry Dean's request to formalize the reporting of NAR financial statements. The year end financials will be made available after the mid-year meeting usually held either February or March of each year. Additionally, the Board will also make available the meeting minutes within the 60 day time period specified in the By-Laws." And the quality of the minutes I am still not satified with. I would prefer they be offered ib this format: http://www.modelaircraft.org/ECnews.asp This is the way I would prefer our minutes be generated in the future. They are clear, concise, they include all discussion,etc This is the way a "professional" organiztion does it... terry dean > Were you there? How do you know what discussion there was or wasn't? > FYI meeting minutes are a synopsis and do not include every detail of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >>terry dean > And the quality of the minutes I am still not satified with. I would > prefer they be offered ib this format: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > terry dean With all due respect, you're talking about an organization that has more than an order of magnitude more members (and financial support). You get what the hobby will support -- and our hobby does not support the level of effort required to do things in the way that you would like. The NAR BOT essentially has a thankless task, and has to take crap from all sides. I do NOT agree with all of their decisions, but AS BEST AS I CAN SEE, everything that they did was on the up-and-up. If you don't like it, submit proposals, run for the board, assist with the (all-volunteer) tasks that are necessary, etc. Whining and moaning about it doesn't help, and if it gets to the point where you feel you can't morally associate yourself with the hobby (folks, please understand, that's not my position, I'm simply positing it for the sake of argument) then get out or form a competing organization. David Erbas-White david: we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In the past, Mark Bundick has posted in various forums, the agenda on the schdule for the upcoming NARBOT meeting. In addition, this being the 21st century, I'm sure the NAR secretary could use a voice recorder to record everything is said and then transcribe the minutes from that. I guess I'm going to have to get the bylaws changed so we can get a full anc omplete minutes from NARBOT meetings. I migth add that even though the NARBOT agreed with my positions about the finanacial reports and minutes, posting them ONLY to the private 200-300 member NAR Section Yahoo group wasn't exactly what I asked for. I asked that they be placed as a pdf on the NAR website so all 4500 memebrs of the NAR would be able to see whats going on with their NAR. I would bet if you did a survey of these other 4000 NAR members they would have no clue what the NARBOT has decided or not. Instead of getting 2 or 3 negative emails, they may have gotten 200-300 emails with a wider distribution of the NAR minutes. terry dean >> And the quality of the minutes I am still not satified with. I would >> prefer they be offered ib this format: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > David Erbas-White > I would bet if you did a survey of these other 4000 NAR members they > would have no clue what the NARBOT has decided or not. Instead of > getting 2 or 3 negative emails, they may have gotten 200-300 emails with > a wider distribution of the NAR minutes. I'd agree with you, that most have no clue what's going on. But I'd also bet that most don't care. If more cared, we'd see higher participation in the elections. The same holds true for Tripoli. -Kevin I agree with you. In fact, I'd like to the the orgs take things a step further and provide some detail on the reasons for the dissenting votes. I also think that the only way things will change is if some new blood gets onto the board. It's been happening at TRA and it is making a difference. It didn't change overnight. Please consider running for BOT and making a difference. Phil >phil: > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >>> >>>terry dean > Were you there? How do you know what discussion there was or wasn't? > FYI meeting minutes are a synopsis and do not include every detail of > every discussion. Also, a board commonly discusses an issue and comes > to a consensus - which leads to a unanimous vote. Terry was not there. The minutes leave out a lot of details. I've asked for something more detailed, and was told that it does not exist. If the board comes to a consensus before a vote, fine. If the board initially votes 5-3 on a topic, then agrees to adopt it unanimously, I have a problem with that kind of reporting. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! Guess NAR & TRA have more in common than you thought. 8-) >The minutes leave out a lot of details. I've asked for >something more detailed, and was told that it does not exist. > bob: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > then there should be no violation and there should > be no issue with coverage during an NAR sponsored activity." So, all of your whining about insurance coverage is just more whining... > His logic is that the NARBOT would ONLY do something in which there > would be no violation of the NAR MRSC. Since when are you qualified to read someone else's mind? How do you know that's what he's thinking? > I also have no doubt, that Mark Bundick mislead Bob as to the true facts, in other words, he > "spun" the facts and the argument in his own favor from the beginning. So, you're calling Mark a liar? Do you have a transcript of the conversation, or is this more of your mind reading talent? > Such testing is certainly rigorous enough to insure both > performance and safety. It doesn't say is was equivalent or 'on par'. It was good enough to insure safety in the hands of a few qualified contest fliers in select venues. Oh yeah. That's the problem. You aren't one of the chosen. > The Board approved the request by unanimous vote. > It appears from the NARBOT minutes, that the only discussion was about > how FAI certfication testing was on par with current NAR/TRA/CAR > certfication testing, which in another post in this thread, I have > already pointed out, is simply not factual. Oh, now you're going to raise the FACT flag. Watch out, it's a two-way street. See above. No one said it was equivalent. > Again, It appears that Mark shaded the truth somewhat, or spun the facts to his favor, which I might > add, he is a master at. Oh come one. Have some balls. Call him a liar. Too bad you're not quite as good at spinning the facts in YOUR favor. Mark's a politician. It's what they do. That's why he's president, and you're an angry old man. > You will also notice that from the above > minutes, no NARBOT members raised any issues or concerns, there seems to > be NO discussion of the possible impacts this policy would have to > NFPA,USDOT or current CPSC regulations. Probably about the same impact you sending letters and making phone calls to said agencies will have. I'm sure that if someone in the government DOES listen to you, they'll be sure an put a big gold star on your "Good Citizen" certificate. I'm not quite ready to go that far and call Bunny a liar.... I do beleive that he dishes alot of BS, i.e., BunnySpin.... examples of BunnySpin include, omitting facts where and when they don't benefit his conculsions; interpreting NFPA regulations incorrectly and geting caught and called on it;interpreting NFPA regulations when they benefit his position but refusing to interpret NFPA regulations when they do not; "packaging" his points to benefit his point of view.... He's been doing this for the past 4 years at least; and hes damn good at it..... He's the best PR/Spinmaster the NAR could ask for, I'll give him kudos on that. ...and "Flyer", at least I am using my real name here..I can't say the same for you.... grow some balls and a backbone and use your real name ... terry dean >> bob: >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > DOES listen to you, they'll be sure an put a big gold star on your "Good > Citizen" certificate. > I'm not quite ready to go that far and call Bunny a liar.... I do beleive This time... You made quite the rant when you left the yahoo list. In fact as I recall you called him far worse than liar :-) Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com > that he dishes alot of BS, i.e., BunnySpin.... > examples of BunnySpin include, omitting facts where and when they don't [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> DOES listen to you, they'll be sure an put a big gold star on your "Good >> Citizen" certificate. > ....and "Flyer", at least I am using my real name here..I can't say the > same for you.... grow some balls and a backbone and use your real name ... > > terry dean 'Cause it's just one more thing that pisses you off... >> bob: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > So, all of your whining about insurance coverage is just more whining... One trustee told me that this activity would invalidate all but site owner coverage. That detail was not in the minutes. >> His logic is that the NARBOT would ONLY do something in which there >> would be no violation of the NAR MRSC. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So, you're calling Mark a liar? Do you have a transcript of the > conversation, or is this more of your mind reading talent? I do not know what was said between Mark and Bob. I do know wha was in one trustees notes from the Kenosha meeting: Only site owner insurance. >> Such testing is certainly rigorous enough to insure both >> performance and safety. > > It doesn't say is was equivalent or 'on par'. It was good enough to > insure safety in the hands of a few qualified contest fliers in select > venues. Oh yeah. That's the problem. You aren't one of the chosen. It is S&Ts job to make that decision, not the boards. >> The Board approved the request by unanimous vote. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, now you're going to raise the FACT flag. Watch out, it's a two-way > street. See above. No one said it was equivalent. The minutes do not reflect the complete details of the discussion. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > It is S&Ts job to make that decision, not the boards. I would disagree. S&T makes recommendations, but they do not make decisions for the organization. Decision-making power rests within the BoT. -Kevin >> It is S&Ts job to make that decision, not the boards. > > I would disagree. > > S&T makes recommendations, but they do not make decisions for the > organization. Decision-making power rests within the BoT. Whether to certify a motor or not is S&T's decision, not the boards. Always has been in the past. But now that we've set precedence, I intend to submit certification requests directly to the board. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > bob: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > His logic is that the NARBOT would ONLY do something in which there would be > no violation of the NAR MRSC. Alas, according to the minutes, that is not what they did. They could have voted to grant reciprocal certification to these motors. They did not. What they did was to authorize selected members to use these motors that are NOT on the associations official certified motor list. > How did he come to this conculsion, simple, Mark Bundick lead him to believe > that: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > simply amazing.... What's more amazing is what is NOT in the minutes! I've exchanged emails with several board members in the past few weeks. At least 2 want to reconsider this decision, based on discussion over the past two weeks. I find that attitude refreshing. The board actually spent 30-40 minutes discussing this issue. One subject that was discussed was that only site owner insurance would apply to these activities. That is not reflected in the minutes. Whatever else was discussed is not reflected in the minutes. Sanitized minutes is a cause for concern. It makes me wonder what else has not been reflected in association minutes? SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >Sanitized minutes is a cause for concern. Minutes are not a transcript of the meeting. >It makes me wonder what else has not been reflected in association minutes? Bob, will you volunteer to attend the board sessions and write full and correct minutes for the membership? Glen Overby ahh thats what we have a NAR secretary for ........ terry dean >>Sanitized minutes is a cause for concern. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Glen Overby No, Terry, it isn't. The minutes of a corporate meeting are NOT a word-by-word transcription of what is discussed. They are a distillation of the essence of what occurred, and constitute the official record of the actions taken. It is the responsibility of the BOT to maintain those minutes properly, and that is done by either removing information they deem incorrect/erroneous, or by adding in information that they feel is pertinent and not included (either intentionally or inadvertantly). That is how it is, and SHOULD be, in the course of conducting meetings. BTW, this is according to "Robert's Rules", etc. A brief synopsis: The Minutes: The record of the proceedings of a deliberative assembly is usually called the Minutes, or the Record, or the Journal. In the meetings of ordinary societies, there is no object in reporting the debates; the duty of the secretary, in such cases, is mainly to record what is "done" by the assembly, and not what is said by the members. The minutes should show: * Kind of meeting, "regular" (or stated) or "special," or "adjourned regular" or "adjourned special"; * Name of the organization or assembly; * Date/time of meeting and place, when it is not always the same; * The fact of the presence of the regular chairman and secretary, or in their absence the names of their substitutes, * Whether the minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved, or approved as corrected, and the date of the meeting if other than a regular business meeting; * All main motions (except such as were withdrawn) and motions that bring a main question again before the assembly, stating the wording as adopted or disposed of, and the disposition--including temporary disposition (with any primary and secondary amendments and adhering secondary motions then pending; * Secondary motions not lost or withdrawn where needed for clarity of the minutes; * Previous notice of motions; * Points of order and appeals, and reasons the chair gives for the ruling; * Time of adjournment. Generally the name is recorded of the mover, but not of the seconder, unless ordered by the assembly. When corrections to the minutes are made by the assembly, the corrections are made in the written text of the minutes being approved, and the minutes of the meeting where they are corrected merely state that the minutes were approved “as corrected”, without actually stating the details of those corrections. the above is from http://www.parlipro.org/minutes.htm Any questions? David Erbas-White > ahh thats what we have a NAR secretary for ........ > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Glen Overby > Bob, will you volunteer to attend the board sessions and write full and > correct minutes for the membership? I'll be glad to supply a tape recorder. I remember when all board meetings WERE taped and transcribed afterwards. I can recall CDT messig with the recorder. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >>Bob, will you volunteer to attend the board sessions and write full and >>correct minutes for the membership? > > I'll be glad to supply a tape recorder. I remember when all board meetings > WERE taped and transcribed afterwards. I can recall CDT messig with the > recorder. As someone pointed out, however, there's a difference between minutes and a transcript. Publishing a full transcript has little value much of the time, and is a waste of time and energy. Now, if an individual wants to do it of their own accord, that's fine. But there's no real value to an organization for a full transcript. -Kevin > greg: > > I'm not even sure the NAR bylaws come into question here. Sure they do. The bylaws say that a) the governing body of the association shall be the Trustess, and b) the association shall establish, enforce, modify and publish standards and rules relating to the construction, operation, and safety of non-professional consumer rockets and rocket products, and c) the association shall collaborate or affiliate with other organizations whether scientific or otherwise, in any manner and to any extent which, in the judgement of the Board of Trustees, will best aid in accomplishing its objectives, and c) the association shall engage in and encourage organized rocket activities as ... the Board of Trustees may from time to time deem necessary or desirable. End of discussion really... Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com > One of the precedent reasons the NAr gave for allowing these uncertfied > motors to be used is that back in the early 90's I guess the NARBOT issued [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >> Yep saw it. Not good enough. See my reply. Sorry! It appears >> what was done was on the up & up after all. > Both sides have claimed the NAR bylaws support their position. Although I have printed them out before, at the moment, I can't find the bylaws any place on the NAR website but I did get several 404 messages. Does anyone have an active, direct link to the bylaws? Randy www.vernarockets.com > Does anyone have an active, direct link to the bylaws? http://nar.org/cabinet/bylaws.pdf The file cabinet contains a lot of useful documents. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.