First Day of NSL, the space time continuum is still A-OK

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
On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:54:28 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
There has been some turnover on the NAR board. The last 3 elections have seen 4 new board members elected. Well, 3 new, and one returning after about a 2 decade absence.
On the other hand, Bunny's been on the board 30 years...

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

Guess NAR & TRA have more in common than you thought. 8-)
On 29 May 2006 16:27:09 -0500, kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
At times TRAs minutes had more detail than they probably should have. I still remember the racist remark that made it into the minutes of my Kangaroo Kourt.

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
So, all of your whining about insurance coverage is just more whining...
  Quoted Text Here  
Since when are you qualified to read someone else's mind? How do you know that's what he's thinking?
  Quoted Text Here  
So, you're calling Mark a liar? Do you have a transcript of the conversation, or is this more of your mind reading talent?
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
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 :-)

  Quoted Text Here  
One trustee told me that this activity would invalidate all but site owner coverage. That detail was not in the minutes.
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
It is S&Ts job to make that decision, not the boards.
  Quoted Text Here  
The minutes do not reflect the complete details of the discussion.

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I would disagree.
S&T makes recommendations, but they do not make decisions for the organization. Decision-making power rests within the BoT.
-Kevin

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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?

ahh thats what we have a NAR secretary for ........
terry dean
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

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
shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

  Quoted Text 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...

  Quoted Text Here  
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

  Quoted Text Here  
http://nar.org/cabinet/bylaws.pdf
The file cabinet contains a lot of useful documents.