Compromise S724 Bill Developed by ARSA

Because it wasn't their idea?

steve

Reply to
default
Loading thread data ...

It is my opinion that NAR and TRA -had to- support the bill. Could you see it had they not? It would have been blown out of the water before the ink was dry. Senator Mumblefrutz; "Why should I vote for this bill when the National Association of Rocketry doesn't even support it?"

NAR and TRA were doing what we're supposed to be doing; Showing a unified front against overburdensome govermental regulations to our hobby.

steve

Reply to
default

Composite Dynamics was not "his" company.

CD01 was Kerry Hoffman and a partner out of Tustin, CA. They made AP/resin 29mm H motors and resold Enerjet F67's and G76's in CA (forbidden fruit) and were Enerjet's largest "commercial division" customer.

CD02 was John Davis and Gary worked for him (I was CD's sales rep for socal and Roger Johnson was the sales rep for nocal). Gary was stationed in Las Vegas, NV (aerial reconnisance analysis).

When CD02 dissolved, Gary formed Aero Technology Company (AeroTech for short). It was later incorporated and relocated from his in-home micro-closet in Palmdale to his in-home micro-closet in Rancho Cordova, CA.

Evidence he did not own CD02.

Dan Meyer BTW Later also Paul Hans.

Pretty sure Dan Meyer and Melodi Rosenfield hates gary Rosenfield's guts still to this day.

At least on a business level.

Just Historical Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Every state simultaneously.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

He was voted into office by John Q Citizen.

:>)

steve

Reply to
default

Steve, read his message again...

This is completely separate from the legal fund.

Reply to
Anonymous

so he could

Now I see what Mark Bundick sees as the communication problem. Mark recently said that they committed $30,000 from the NAR general fund for legal advice on S724.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the "legal fund" is simply a fund-raising term, and that by law all money raised _has_ to go into the general fund.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I think you are right. It is merely an earmark and probably not even binding.

It's not like they are charging an "insurance surcharge" or a ?magazine subscription".

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Non profits generally class their revenues into two basic buckets, "unrestricted" and "restricted" funds. Unrestricted fund can be used for any purpose deemed suitable by the governing body. Restricted funds must be used for the purpose they were given for.

Examples of this abound. If your college alma mater takes in an $N million gift from someone to endow a professorship in tiddly winks, then that's a restricted gift to be used only for the tiddly winks professor.

In this case, funds donated to the NAR Legal Fund are used strictly to fund our legal expenses.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

Reply to
Mark B. Bundick

But are comingled with all general funds and merely recorded on a ledger, right?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

One other point is missing: work cannot be considered Amateur if the person is a professional in that field. Even if someone were to dabble on the side before starting a rocket company, it cannot be called 'Amateur' if this is their field of work.

-John

Reply to
John DeMar

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I got an email back from Gary re this. If any one wants to know his REAL background, he directed them to the ER interview a while back. He said it's on line on their web site.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

The ER interview had a good listing of his professional background. But it did not focus on his amateur rocket activities which was the topic leading to my post.

I am open to being corrected on specific dates from what I posted to be sure.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.