The finger pointing continues...



I got it! It's under the radar with prairie dog effect. You see, ya come in under the radar quiet like, then you pop up with a letter campaign that only your allies can see. Pop back down low for a while and then mumble something on the Senate floor that only your allies know about. Then they all say, "oh yeah, we heard about that. It's a good thing, just vote yes".
steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex Mericas wrote:

S.724 as a bill was not intended to be under the radar. That was the stealth bill we had hoped to do with Lott or Frist (a technical corrections bill to the SEA)
it was the wording of S.724 that was not to be disclosed to anyone but "friendlies" prematurely, but John Kyte provided a draft to Mark Bundick, who in turn posted it to ROL, a public site.
such tipping of our hand to the opposition was not something one would expect from an "experienced lobbyist"
from "What Really Happened With S724?" at http://www.space-rockets.com/edit-2 -- While the wording of the bill was not publicly disclosed, the goal was clearly stated on our web site and known to all. No one in the hobby to my knowledge had any problem with the goals. As a matter of Senate protocol, you do not publicly disclose the wording of a bill before introduction except to members of your own political party and select members of the other party. TRA and NAR were felt to be a risk with respect to the text of the bill being disclosed prior to introduction. This was latter proven to be a well founded fear.
We did solicited suggestions on changing the SEA bill. I received many emails from people with helpful suggestions that eventually found their way into the bill. I did not receive one single suggestion from TRA or NAR except get out and turn it over to us. I knew we were in serious trouble when NAR and TRA hired John Kyte. He had a personal agenda of getting money out of TRA and NAR. He made it clear to me in a phone call that he was upset that he had provided "free" public relation services to TRA and NAR on the lawsuit. This time he intended to be paid. As Kyte and Bundick are friends, Bundick arranged to have Kyte paid a total of $30,000 for his services for helping the legislative effort. He was paid by the month.
TRA, NAR and Kyte could not have come into the picture at a worse time. Myself and Senator Enzi's staff were working on the final wording of the bill and he was lining up cosponsors. We were extremely busy and Kyte was chomping at the bit to get involved in the bill. Finally, he just burst into Candice Cotton's office without an appointment and informed her he represented the two largest hobby rocketry organizations. They were going to be involved in the legislative effort whether Enzi liked it or not. Candice was Senator Enzi's lead staffer on the bill. She was polite, gave Kyte a copy of the current draft of the bill and told him Enzi would listen to their comments. Kyte, TRA and NAR immediately had the draft bill posted to the ROL news page.
--
- iz


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Weinshenker wrote:

the timing was critical
the anology that comes to mind is a condutor in an orchestra. The eyes willbe on him so when he emphatically drops his baton all sections respond without hestitation and the impact resounds throughout the hall
what was needed was responsiveness, immediate action
not the cacophony of fax - no! don't fax! - ok, fax

exactly
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

from John Wickman --

--
- iz


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Point(s)!
My ads are in B&W as a direct result.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Please email me. I have a reply for you that must be kept private...
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:19:38 -0500, running for cover

My recollection is that Wickman invited the NAR and its members to jump in. I think Wickman could have easily snuck it in under the NAR/TRA radar, but not under the Judiciary Commitee radar.
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To write letters at specified times to specified groups.
NOT to split the message with a legislative "specialist" with a disparate agenda.
Imagine if another party became party to the ATF lawsuit and proffered an entirely different theory and position than NAR or TRA? Hmmm?

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So much happened in so little time that I'm having a hard time remembering history. Didn't Wickman begin by asking all rocket individuals (not NAR/TRA orgs) to write, call, FAX, etc? Then didn't he ask NAR/TRA to notify their members about Enzi's legislative effort just in case he had missed some and thus those people wouldn't know about it? I don't want to be guilty of selective remembering. Larry Lobdell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@afo.net (Larry Lobdell, Jr.) wrote:

He kept NAR/TRA in the loop backchannel and they did not return the favor. When he received the word from Enzi as he said he would, NAR and TRA treated it like word from wickman alone.
However Enzi is of course precluded from asking for lobbying.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

a fact TRA/NAR's "experienced lobbyist" apparently hadn't come across in his travels
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

a bit more history ...
JW called on rocketeers everywhere to support the initiative, from the time of the "Dear Colleague" letter from Sen. Enzi to all Senators (call for action on Feb 28th, 2003). The purpose was to show the Senators the level of interest the issue carried, and to encourage them to sign on as cosponsors or at a minimum, support the bills passage with their vote
TRA/NAR were alarmed that their members might actually support a legislative effort that they hadn't initiated, and railed about a lack of communication
yet when they were approached, they insisted on steering the bill through the senate. Kyte letter to Sen. Enzi citing their willingness to compromise his position on weight limits was a very good indication of just how that "steering" would proceed ... directly to Kohl's office, which they in the end saw to that it did
but as a courtesy to the TRA/NAR leaderships, John had agreed to give notice prior to calling for actions. In John Wickman's words, this is how that worked out:
"As for letting TRA/NAR know in advance on letter campaigns. That came out of a phone conversation with Ken Good. I agreed to let them know 24 hours in advance and DID on the next letter campaign. All I can say is that I sent the 24 hour email notice to Ken Good. If he did not get it that is not my fault. He claims he didn't get it. I have no way of knowing if he did or did not. I do know that within a few hours of the phone conversation with him, where he acted all nice, he went on the TRA list server and launched a personal attack against me. Still, I gave the 24 hour notice on the next letter campaign. I did not after that."
"Secondly, some[one] was trying to make the point the TRA/NAR letter response was only delayed a few hours. That is wrong. In some cases, it was days. What the TRA/NAR apologists want you to forget is that the legislative process is very time sensitive. Delays are not acceptable."
it became increasingly clear that TRA/NAR leadership had no concern for anyone but themselves, not the vendors, not the public, not even their own members for whom for whatever reason LEUPS were anavailable. For a so-called 'professional' lobbyist, Kyte showed no acumen or sensitivity to the situation
again, in JW's words:
"In order to justify the delay, NAR/TRA took the line, we have to check with Senator Enzi's staff before we tell you to write. Candice Cotton had made it clear that you do not publicly say, 'Senator Enzi wants to you write', because it is against Senate policy to have letter campaigns started and organized by other Senators. Everybody knows it happens, but YOU DO NOT PUBLICLY ADMIT IT!. Another Senator's staffer happened to see a news release from Mark Bundick posted on ROL telling people to write as it had been cleared by Senator Enzi's office. The Senator went ballistic and raised hell with Senator Enzi. The result was Candice Cotton getting called into her boss's office and getting reprimanded for letting it out that Enzi was encouraging this sort of thing. Give another point to Bundick for incompetence.
"What is truly unfortunate is that this shot to Candice was the direct result of the NAR/TRA campaign to portray themselves in the loop and myself out of it. I was just the loose cannon. Thanks to Bundick's ego, a young staffer gets a black mark on her record. Give another point to Bundick for screwing an innocent person."
in retrospect JW's instincts about the TRA/NAR were correct
their meddling was fatal
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I used to be a Ham - I presume the fight for spectrum space is worse than it was 3 decades ago. I detect in your post an adversarial assumption that shouldn't be there. If someone made a proposal to the FCC that would be to the detriment of ARRL and amateur radio, of course they'd get involved to fight the proposal. But what would they do if someone else (does 73 magazine still exist?) made a proposal that would benefit hams? Perhaps they'd encourage their members to write if asked? Perhaps they'd file a brief or whatever in support of the proposal? But I highly doubt they'd interfere with an effort that may have a positive impact on hams just because that effort wasn't begun by them. I think ARRL would have realized the stupidity of such interference.
Read the original Enzi bill. If passed it WOULD have had a positive effect on many rocketeers. It certainly would have helped me (both NAR/TRA, L2). When I heard about the bill, I fully expected NAR/TRA to GLADLY SUPPORT the effort. They had the "responsibility" to look out for the interests of rocket flyers, but they chose to literally "look out for themselves" instead. I don't remember that John asked NAR/TRA not to get involved at all. Apparently he did ask them to support the effort, but they weren't content to have "just" a support role. Remember what someone else posted in this thread? The organizations changed the Enzi/Wickman legislative effort into the NAR/TRA legislative effort. This sounds like an ego problem, a desire to make the organizations seem relevant, etc. Why on earth would anyone be skeptical of the Enzi/Wickman initiative? Why were you skeptical? Why should NAR/TRA be skeptical just because John wasn't a member of either? Who cares what John's motive was? Maybe he was greedy; self-centered; concerned with his own company; intends to make a big-a$$ APCP motor instead of An. Whatever John's motives may have been, the bill would have benefitted much of the NAR/TRA membership. Since when have we become so moral that we refuse to support a legislative effort that would benefit us just because the effort was begun by someone whose motives we suspected might be impure? Not supporting John and Enzi in the way they asked was just plain stupid. And it resulted in a 0.9 pound limit that is useless to most L2 flyers, and showed their willingness to settle for crumbs instead of fighting ATFE for at least a bigger piece of the cake. And to add to the injury, NAR/TRA actually wanted the result passed in the Senate so it could be "fixed" in the House. As someone else has said, legislation doesn't get better; it gets worse. No wonder the government thinks we need to be regulated to death. It must think we're too stupid to be allowed to have rocket motors. Larry Lobdell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@afo.net (Larry Lobdell, Jr.) wrote:

ROFL!
This should be in the FAQ.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then you aren't up on all the petitions to the FCC concerning license restructuring and the fate of morse code testing (element 1). The ARRL has filed a petition, so have some so-called "grass-roots" organizations, at least one individual, and the NCVEC. And then there is BPL which might render everything else moot, at least regarding HF. There is an NPRM concerning BPL open for comment right now.

73 ceased publication last year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, I thought I had said (or at least implied) that I haven't been in radio for 30 years. So of course I'm not up on all the petitions before the FCC. Since you brought up an ARRL example, I tried to reply to it. Too bad about 73; when I was involved I thought they were an interseting foil for ARRL. But I guess that sidetracked us. But you never replied to the topic under discussion. We were talking about rockets, no? And you indicated that you would be suspicious of anyone who said they were doing something that would benefit you too but asked you to stay out of it. So would NAR/TRA. Why? Wickman/Enzi had started a legislative effort to exempt APCP sport rocketry propellant. If it had succeeded, it would have had a positive and very welcome result for many NAR/TRA members (me too :). I belong to both NAR and TRA and when I heard about the Enzi attempt to help us, I was ecstatic and did what Wickman asked us to do. But suppose for a minute NAR/TRA was suspicious that this legislative effort might somehow end up having a more negative effect on their members than the present regulations do. Then instead of flip-flopping as they did, they could have told their members what Enzi/Wickman were doing, they could have told their members they weren't sure if this was a good thing (it could be a good thing not to ardently encourage support of something you don't know anything about), and they could have remained neutral by advising their members to use their own discretion in this matter. But we all know what they did and didn't do. They didn't help. Instead they tried to take it over, and that doomed any positive legislation. Again, it makes no sense (at least to me) to not aid a fellow rocketeer who is trying to help. Sure, the proposed legislation would have helped Wickman, maybe even commercially, but so what? It would have helped NAR/TRA members too, so why be suspicious and sabotage it? Larry [Government (Smart) + Rocketeer (Dumb) = Happy ATFE] Lobdell Jr.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Lobdell, Jr. wrote:

that was all we could ask for; the members use of their own discretion

an accurate portrayal

- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Lobdell, Jr. wrote:

this should be in the FAQ
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
running for cover wrote:

perhaps they should have asked themselves "why"? what was there stance and track record that prevented those seeking regulatory relief from perceiving them as an ally?
it is because they are pro-regulation, so long as the regulation permits enough of rocketry to occur to keep people around to pay dues, and as long as those regulations, combined with their policies, make paying dues the only way rocketry can still be around
it is the TRA/NAR agenda that positions them on the side of regulators, they are regulatory accessories, appeasers and surrogates
while those supporting S.724 AS INTRODUCED were the rocketry advocates
BTW, what is you REAL name, Bruce?
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In hind sight only one thing: it had no chance of passing.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.