A modest proposal... or Jerry Irvine saves the Universe

Mark this doesn't make it right nor good nor explain it away... ..Perhaps in the real world of politics, the people just don't care cause they have no reason to care.....

Again does this make it right or good for our organization? Why not put up to ballot to the membership what form of organization they might prefer....?

We will not

Thats your opinion Mark......You really don't know.... I would submit that having direct election of the NAR Officers, making the NAR officers separate and distinct from the BOT, restricting people from holding multiple positions might open up the NAR to new people, new energy and new ideas.......

Just because the structure of the NAR organization has been like it is does not mean its the optimal structure...and as you stated above yourself, you are not even willing to entertain the idea of such a change might be a good thing ......

shockie B)

The point is that you have to be a member to gain access to the agenda. The NAR representative should be notifying the membership when 1122,

1125 or 1127 is being addressed, what issues are on the table, etc. Reporting to the BOT does not get the subject matter in front of the membership for comment.

The people who adopt these codes have no idea what this hobby is about. I have a local fire marshall that wants restrict the size of motors flown due the lauch field dimensions in 1122, dimensions that are tied to motor size not altitude.

These are issues that I have seen brought up before and yet nothing is happening to correct them.

The regulations are "excessive" because there has been little or no input from the membership on what is in them. Only the BOT, working in silence, are making these judgements.

Rocky Firth

correspondance with

directly references

Minnesota has adopted the IFC 2000 code, but not (yet) the IFC

2003 code. My understanding (and I could well be wrong) is that IFC 2000 was basically the UBC code with the IFC label, and that the new IFC code will be the first to truly integrate the three old standard codes and (some of) the NFPA codes. When I was dancing with the local AHJs trying to get a common understanding of what was required to have motor storage, I was up to date. I guess I have to go to the library for a few hours.... 1122/1125/1127...

I'm not in a position to talk about the contents of any specific conversations, but the SFM told me the same thing three years ago, via the topics not covered clause in the old UBC code. My point is only that knowing that a code is "adopted" is not necessarily enough.

I'm just saying that you can be fooled if all you do is assume that the IFC governs all regulations--it's still dependent on how the IFC is practiced locally. As an analogy, we have a very well defined Federal code in the form of the orange book, and people are still being told to do things that aren't in it--if the NAR says the orange book says its OK, and your BATF inspector says it isn't, who would you be mad at? Would everyone agree?

can't launch

activities.They only

That is exactly my point. Under 1122, you may not launch rockets with homemade motors, only certified ones. That doesn't make EX illegal, but it does say that you can't cite 1122 as your governing code. So what regulations DO apply to EX? It's more up to the AHJ's interpretation. If ATF defines AP as an explosive, s/he may want to apply NFPA codes applicable to explosives. Or perhaps the correct section of law to apply is the one that governs fireworks manufacturing. Or both. And if you damage something by accident, are they going to call it an accident? Or gross negligence? Or criminal mischief? See??

There are some who argue that if it isn't explicitly prohibited, then it is allowed. I'm not unsympathetic to that approach, but I don't think it will work for everyone in the real world, and I'd be uncomfortable if my hobby organizations tried to interpret the local laws for me, let alone all of its members!

date.....there is an

distributed as a

determining this

Two points.

First, if it were that easy, you'd have done it by now ;-). It isn't, of course. You'll get no response from some, and you'd have to follow up. Other Fire Marshals are set up as investigators, and there is a different organization that works on codes. If you're lucky, they'd tell you. Or you might get a nice letter that says the current code is yadda yadda and it's been ammended by foo bar blech and the new code is anticipated to be adopted by the legislature in two months except that it's been tied to a gun bill or a tax cut bill or a sports stadium bill or.... you get the idea. Minnesota, for example, has a lot of the ammendments to the codes on line, but heaven help you if you only find 4 of the 5 places that regulate you.

Second, you have to consider that if you ask a SFM for a written assessment in a letter, you are likely to get a conservative answer. If instead you work with the SFM office to educate them about why what you are doing is different from making McGuyver bombs, you might get a more liberal answer. So what's really needed, IMO, is not a mailing list for the state of local regulation, but a clearing house in which interested people _from each state_ develop relations with the appropriate regulators and share information with local hobbyists. But again, that's a lot of work. I wrote up my experiences several years ago for ROL Infocentral, but it would be a load of work to maintain such a thing. I can think of about 10 alternative activities I'd rather have a pool of volunteers committed enough to do the legal lists do instead, assuming I could gather such a pool of people!

FWIW,

--tc

Because the smallest mosquito can carry the most deadly virus...

That's the way a representative democracy is supposed to work. Decisions are made by those elected to make them.

What have you volunteered to do, and when were you rejected?

Well, that sounds more like a problem with the voters, than with the NAR or its officers.

I'm not a fan of term limits. If someone's doing a good job, I should have to right to re-elect them as many times as they are willing to run.

I'd ask you to name one, but I already know the answer. You think anyone, anywhere, should be able to do absolutely anything at all without even the slightest bit of regulation. Even if that were a completely desirable goal, it's never going to happen in this life and anyone who doesn't understand that is seriously out of touch with reality.

A private club can set any rules it wants. If you don't like it, start your own club and set your own rules.

I see no reason why they should do it. I still don't see why you and Shock are making such an issue out of something that is such a non-issue, other than just to stir up trouble. Do you see any hordes of hobbyists asking for this stuff? I don't. I just see a couple of whiners making a stink.

What crock. He claims to know of an "easy" way to get the information that he alone is seeking, but he refuses to do it and instead demands that someone else do it. That's not skill, that's BS.

Speaking of BS... sheesh.

Face it Iz, Enzi's bill was doomed from the start. NO ONE could have gotten it passed in its original form. Get over it already. Heck, you don't even fly high power anyway.

Of course not, they want someone else to do all the work for them. All they want to do is sit on the sidelines and gripe about every little thing that doesn't go their way.

And some just spend their lives whining on rmr instead of doing anything constructive. Or have you actually formed a new club? If so, why not concentrate on that?

I agree, but with only three candidates on the ballot to fill three positions, 98% of the membership not voting could also indicate a massive "vote" of no confidence.

Alan

OK, do we have second to that proposal?

Haven't you heard? You're just supposed to wave your middle finger at all government and public safety officials, and like magic they'll just disappear and we'll all live happily ever after in a joyous world of pixies, unicorns and free rocketry for all! Just ask Iz, he heard it from Jerry who is a highly credible source!

I refer you to my previous post in thread "Re: ARSA info request for Izzy", posted 2003-12-05 06:31:47 PST, excerpted as follows -

additionally, at the most critical juncture (the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting), JW had called for rocketeers to write the Chairman and all the other committee members. This was in recognition of the FACT that committee members act on behalf of the nation as a whole, not exclusively in the interests of their home states. [otherwise every committee would require 50 members, lest the committee decisions reflect the interests of a handful of states. Which states should decide Defense issues, for example? ]

yet when the TRA/NAR alliance finally made the request to their memberships to write letters, they aked only people in Committee members particular states to take action; and strongly discouraged people from other states from participating as they would be ignored, devalued, or even be a source of "annoyance" to the Senators.

as a result of this policy, the opportunity to demonstrate to all SJC members how many were affected by their decisions, and what their specific arguments were in support of S.724 was lost.

this was the single most destructive position TRA/NAR took during the various campaigns.

another example of "undermining" that was not limited to mere "delays", was TRA's possession of the DOJ/BATFE letter to Senator Hatch, SJC Charirman. They had obtained this by whatever means, yet failed to respond in a timely fashion, failed to notify the membership of the opportunity to and importance of responding, and failed to forward it to JW so ARSA and its supporters could act.

John eventually obtained the letter through other channels, but several days later, and just 3 days before [what was to be] the final hearing. Even so, John responded substantively under the considerably shortened time he had available. His responses ultimately resulted in the DOJ withdrawing the letter, but only after the SJC was influenced to allow the Hatch-Kohl substitution to take place.

Had JW been given this letter by TRA immediately, and had TRA supported JW's call for an "all states" fax/call campaign to every SJC member, I firmly believe the outcome would be very different [i.e.; the Hatch-Kohl substitution would never have taken place, and the matter would have continued to be deliberated in the SJC, or sent to the floor of the Senate without the SJC's recommendation.

these are the sources of indignation among those who understand the reality of what actually transpired during these campaigns

this is false. They were aware of John's intent before it was drafted, but insisted that control the content. Their control would have resulted in a bill unrecognizable from SB 724, with weight limits that would constitute implicit agreement with the BATFE's position that APCP was dangerous (if not explosive), and that BATFE oversight was necessary.

SB 724's justifiable blanket exemption for non-explosive rocketry materials is the only way to expell the BATFE

no, they were acting in their best interests. A blanket exemption would have implications for the NFPA codes that maintain the TRA/NAR franchise on motor and user certifications. If rocketry materials and the rockets that house them are exempt by virtue of them not being dangerous, what would the justification for those codes be? They would be reduced to what they should be - fire codes, to provide reasonable protection to people and property from a flammable solid.

as I said earlier in this post, had TRA/NAR not undermined the effort, and had they acted to represent the interests of all rocketeers faithfully, we would have had far more control going onto the floor, and would have the grass-roots support (and the ability to weild it in a focused, responsive fashion) throughout its life in the Senate and beyond (to the HR and the President's desk).

- iz

Only one "l" in Marshal

;-)

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

-Fred "Thank God someone still has those wavs on the web" Shecter NAR 20117

I've had some useless email exchanges with Mr. Dean over the last thing he was complaining about. What has become obvious to me is that he's only interested in complaining -- he won't ever volunteer to actually *DO* any of the things that he's complaining about.

I'd like to see Mr. Dean come up with legal info pertaining to NFPA adoptance for the state he lives in.

Glen Overby

I have seen him do the research and publish it on private lists. He seems not to have access to web resources very efficiently. I have offered to webize the content. We know that one of the very few messages I posted that Bundick actually replied to, he seems to want me to improve my site since his association. NAR, has no intentions of doing it.

Now if only he would reply to my (many) posts asking NAR to stop illegally violating 55.141-a-8 (and NFPA codes) by forcing vendors and manufacturers and users to get ATF permits by refusing service to those who refuse.

Jerry

For the past several years, yes, it has been meaningless to vote. You've got a ballot to elect 3 trustees, and there are only 3 names on the ballot. Unless someone runs as a write-in at NARAM, guess what the result will be. Is it even worth 37 cents in postage to return a ballot like this? I think not.

Back in the "good old days", the NAR had 13 trustees, and the whole group was elected in bulk every 3 years. There used to be 20 or more candidates running for the board, and people DID bother to return the ballots. Certainly not a majority, but something in the 10-20% range, instead of

1-2%.

BTW, I understand WHY they changed from electing the whole board every 3 years to electing 1/3 of the board every year. It promotes some level of continuity. But I don't understand why no one is interested in running for trustee since the change.

They don't ask because the answer is obvious. If there were 6 candidates to choose 3 trustees from every year, I'd bet people would bother to vote.

I'm not sure if this was used back in 1978 when the BOT was crumbling under an absentee president and VP. The remaining trustees met in Chicago in IIRC Feb 1978 to remove the president, and elect new officers. That's when Pat Miller became president, and Bunny VP.

Well, first someone has to be willing to run for the BOT. More often than not, the nominating committee gets NO response from any one other than the incumbants. In fact I can recall one time where they only had 2 candidates for the 3 positions. The BOT had to do some serious arm twisting to fill the final position (again IIRC iths is when Vern stepped down from the BOT and no one wanted to take his place).

There is a simple solution to this problem: Shockie, run for the BOT. I'd almost even say Jerry, run for the BOT. There's a couple former BOT members I'd really like to see come back as well.

Are you volunteering to take over?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!