[TRA motor certs] USR

That pretty much says it all.

It never occurred to me to turn Ray's one-liner logic on himself... very interesting... but not very productive just the same.

Ray, you still take awesome in-flight rocket photos, however.

~ Duane Phillips.

Well, say hello to Jimmy for us...

~ Duane Phillips.

Thankyou! Really. This is all I was after. Maybe I worded it confusingly (I am not perfect). I appreciate the effort.

As to the reply, this is what I "felt" in my gut that you had aluded to believing, but was never as clearly stated as you just did.

~ Duane Phillips.

Not true. Prior to the institution of motor certs for high power, the biggest manufacturer was AT. Vulcan and USR were most likely in second and third place, and USR was falling apart. Then there were a handful of tiny manufacturers whose motors were rarely available and often of questionable quality. These manufacturers also had a habit of going out of business at the drop of a hat.

Availability was limited mostly to large launches, because of shipping costs and restrictions. Just as today, few hobby shops carried any of these motors.

They are NOT "relinquishing" their votes, they are giving someone permission to cast their vote for them when they themselves cannot be present. As one who claims to be on the BOD of a non-profit organization I'm surprised that you do not have at least some familiarity with the concept of proxies.

And since none of the board members who gave Chuck their proxies ever complained about it or gave any indication that they did not approve, all these insinuations of impropriety are pure hogwash.

And again, Ray, this is obviously not getting through to you.

It doesn't matter if every Director gave Chuck their proxies and he voted exactly the way they wanted. Proxies are not valid for Directors unless specifically enumerated in the bylaws. They are not enumerated in the TRA bylaws, in fact, there is explicit wording requiring the PRESENCE of Directors for a quorum.

Therefore, even if Chuck voted the way the Directors 'would have' voted (only we'll never know, because part of the process of being a Director involves listening to arguments), it was an ILLEGAL vote, thus it has no standing in law. Why do I say law? Because the bylaws are a legal agreement that the Corporation has made with the government, in order to be granted 'corporate' status. That is why bylaws must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval.

Why is the value of argument important? Because that is part of the policy/decision making process. I once chaired a board that had (IIRC) thirteen members. We were taking a vote over an extremely volatile issue for the group. At the beginning of the discussion I asked for a 'sense of the room' as to how they were leaning, and it was 2 for, 11 against. After the argument/discussion was completed, it was 13 for, none against (I felt like in "12 Angry Men" ).

I'm hoping this will eventually sink in, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

David Erbas-White

Given the lack of communication and accurate transmission of what does happen at meetings, it is unreasonable to presume the same folks would be forthcoming about something where on the face of it there seems to be defacto impropriety.

Jerry

Well let's see... Jerry seems to make enemies like an outhouse draws flies, he has a reputation as a scam artist that goes back decades, he's slipperier than oil when you try to pin him down on anything, and just about everyone who's ever been in business with him apparently regrets it and/or hates his guts...

Hmm, a "no-Jerry" position doesn't seem so weird to me.

So doesn't this same philosophy apply to Bruce Kelly or Chuck Rogers WRT alleged violations thay claim I have done when they were NOT present?

a court of

Innocence is

_commited_ an

I thought he said he specifically _asked_ the Postal Service to verify compliance before sending the package - and it's obvious that he _wasn't_ trying to pull a fast one on anyone by "concealing hazardous materials in unlabeled packaging" or anything like that!

The photo on that ROL page showed a sturdy box clearly labeled with "1.4" hazard diamonds and "do not load on passenger aircraft" and stuff like that. Nobody could ever claim that USPS had no idea what he was asking to ship, yet you seem to think that he just "happened to get away with something" - what?

It sure looked to me like he bent over backwards to make that box legal six ways from Tuesday. What "illegal" act do you see that "just didn't happen to get prosecuted"? (The only thing I could quibble about is the "class 1.4": that may have overstated the actual hazard level, but there's that UN thing that says that anything intended for "practical pyrotechnic effect" gets an "honorary class 1" whether or not it qualifies on inherent hazard, so 1.4 would probably be the most applicable to small finished unit items like motors.)

Tripoli and ROL, on the other hand, seem to have flunked big-time on a basic, standards-referenced QA test on "ability to recognize safely shipped motors"!

-dave w

Do some research yourself, since you're the one questioning everything. Just make sure you get some more reliable sources than the ones you've been using.

I don't see anything that says proxies _can't_ be used. Proxies had used at board meetings prior to this (at least three years earlier), so there was definitely precident for it. Also, the proxies Chuck had were notorized. In any case, Ed Tindell resigned at that meeting, and insisted that his resignation was due only to the demands of his personal and professional life.

Oh, I'm aware of how much time, effort and money is needed to create and maintain an organization with the capability of doing motor and flyer certs. Which is one reason why I think the organizations that have done it should be supported, not used and abused as you've been advocating.

Dave W. wrote:

Yeah, too bad he's lying. Chuck did not "call a meeting", it was the annual board meeting. He had four proxies, three of which were notorized. The fourth was given over the phone at that meeting. And it wasn't just some regional launch either, it was LDRS -- August 3, 1989.

Oh, and if Jerry was there and thought something was being done wrong, why didn't he say so at that time?

Er... you seem to have confused proxy voting, a corporate standard, with absentee balloting... another corporate standard.

If the parameters given are correct then yes, they relinquished their votes.

And if the TRA bylaws mandated presence by Directors, and did not mention proxies for Directors, then it was unconstitutional.

And if it had occured in Indiana with a non-profit corporation with the same constitutional setup it would have been quite illegal.

First become familar with the difference between proxies nd absentee ballots.

No.

The simple facts stated here in the group in regards to various TRA activities, as verified by the TRA and supporters themselves, make it very clear that the TRA lacks the constitutional setup, regulatory background, and bureaucratic experience base to be making the decisions it makes for the people the claims to be making them for.

And the hobby suffers for this lack.

It is a cowboy-style group. Which is not a bad thing except that it has taken on regulatory powers and government cognizance... without the neccessary background to do the job properly.

TRA is on an earnest well meant "world-saving!" power-trip... but the bill for this vacation from reality has come due.

And thousands in the hobby are paying the price.

At Lucerne/Victorville? With that as the primary/only item of business? In secret?

No I am not lying.

So you are saying sitting president Ed Tindell called a meeting he was NOT aware of the time or place of and said "go to it guys"?

Just checking what you mean by your "allefedly not a lie".

I DOCUMENTED that discussion as secretary and that is part of what was TRUNCATED from the published minutes as well as serveral other" improper corrections when they made it to print.

You definitely were NOT there Ray.

"default" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.boeing.com:

Don't be hasty to attribute to malice what may only be evidence of, uhm, incompetence.

len.

:)