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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're absolutely right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.