NBRC BYLAW ADDITION – ARTICLE XIV
NBRC Item 2015-001
Executive members debated a bylaw addition that was designed to allow future
Executive Committees the flexibility to revise boundaries as deemed appropriate
or needed, considering it ludicrous for any sitting EC to foresee what unique
circumstances will confront future administrations with respect to the
management of regions and their boundaries.
As aptly stated by EC advisor Tom Monson, who in turn edited the proposed
bylaw for the committee’s benefit, future EC’s “will have, and should have, as
much authority as this EC does, and they can use that authority however they
think best in light of the circumstances on the ground as they confront them. The
best we can do it to give them some guidelines and try to persuade them to think
over our concerns whenever they re-examine boundary proposals, and couch our
guidelines in friendly enough flexibility that they’ll find them more helpful than
restrictive.”
At first, the EC discussed incorporating the pertinent information into fly policy,
but it was concluded that the subject matter would best serve the organization as
bylaw addition. Regional structure is fundamental to the organization of the
NBRC, whereas fly policies deal with the facets of conducting competition. “The
formation and splitting or merging of regions often is driven by NCF needs, but
the effects of regional boundary changes extend beyond the NCF into the
governance of the club as a whole”, Monson advised.
PROPOSED NBRC BYLAW ARTICLE XIV
Article XIV – NBRC Regional Structure
The NBRC shall be organized into regions whose boundaries comport with the
guidelines set out in this Article.
Section 1. Purposes. NBRC regions are formed to assign each Club member to a
specific region which corresponds generally to the member’s geographic
location. A Regional Director will be appointed or elected for each region,
pursuant to Articles IV and V hereof. Regional boundaries shall be established or
modified only upon approval of the Executive Committee. In establishing or
adjusting boundaries for Club regions, the Executive Committee is encouraged to
duly consider the guideline criteria set out in Section 2.
Section 2. Regional Boundary Guidelines. Regional boundaries should be
determined so as to benefit the needs of the individual club members residing in
each region, the needs of the national Club, and the need for efficient
management of the National Championship Fly competition (“NCF”). These needs
include, but are not limited to, the following considerations:
(a) Regions should be delineated by clear geographic boundaries, enabling each
Club member to easily be aware of the region to which he or she belongs.
(b) Regions should be organized so as to enhance participation in the NCF and
other Club activities, specifically:
(i) Regions should be large enough in membership that every member, however
remotely he or she may reside from other members, is afforded a realistic
opportunity to participate in the NCF;
(ii) In areas having large numbers of member/NCF participants, regions should be
small enough that the regional round of the NCF can be conducted promptly and
without unduly burdening the Regional Director and local members who assist in
managing and carrying out the NCF within that region.
(c) Regions should not be split or boundaries re-aligned (gerrymandered) for
anti-competitive reasons, including the intent to exclude or congregate NCF
competitor(s) into or out of any particular region.
(d) Regional boundaries should be determined without regard to affiliation with
local roller clubs, personal rivalries, friendships, ethnic backgrounds, roller strain
preferences, or relationships of any kind which are irrelevant to NCF competition
or contrary to the inclusive camaraderie the Club strives to foster.
(e) Strong regions able to qualify two or more competitors into the NCF finals
round are strongly favored over “micro regions” consisting of small numbers of
NCF participants who have difficulty gathering enough NCF participants to
qualify at least one competitor in the NCF finals round.
(f) Club members and the Executive Committee are encouraged to recognize the
need for common sense and flexibility in requesting and approving regional
boundary changes. While some regional boundaries may seem permanent, other
regions may require contraction/merger or expansion/splitting as Club
membership and NCF participation fluctuate over time.
Section 3. Statewide Regions Preferred. NBRC regions shall generally consist of
entire U.S. States. Regional boundaries will correspond to the U.S. State
boundary lines. Only compelling reasons will justify the approval by the
Executive Committee of other boundaries.
Section 4. Multi-State Regions. States with low Club membership or NCF
participation may be merged or combined into a single region. Wherever
possible, entire States should be combined with other whole State regions,
rather than being divided and shared by two (or more) adjacent State regions.
Only compelling reasons justify the division of a single state into more than one
adjacent State region. Such reasons may include the segregation of small
clusters of members distant from one another within a geographically large State,
but both of which clusters reside in close proximity to member groups in
adjacent states.
Section 5. Intrastate Regions. States having large populations of members
competing in the NCF may be divided into two or more regions within the same
State to enhance participation and efficient management of the NCF.
Boundaries for intrastate regions shall be determined by county boundary lines.
Section 6. Intracounty Regions. Individual counties having large populations of
members who participate in the NCF may be divided into two or more regions
within the same county to enhance participation and efficient management of the
NCF. Boundaries for intracounty regions shall be determined first by county
boundary lines, and second, by clear, permanent geographic boundaries
corresponding to major rivers or highways.
Section 7. Regional mergers. Mergers of State or county regions shall be justified
only where one or both regions have experienced difficulty amassing sufficient
numbers of NCF competitors to qualify a single entrant into the finals round of
the NCF. The merger of two regions shall require approval of the Executive
Committee and must merge the entire states or counties, subject only to the
types of compelling exceptions recited elsewhere in this Article. Mergers
are not justified where clusters of NCF participants are merged into other regions,
leaving any NCF participant effectively isolated and without a region in which to
compete, or leaving any geographic zone in the U.S.A. not covered by an NBRC
region.
Section 8. Regional splits. Divisions or splits of State or county regions shall be
justified only where all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) The existing regional NCF participation numbers have been sufficient to
generate at least three qualifiers into the NCF finals round over the previous two
years;
(b) The new regional boundaries for both surviving regions are defined by state
boundary lines, county boundary lines, or, in the case of intracounty regions,
other permanent geographic boundaries such as major rivers or highways;
c) Qualified Club members have volunteered to serve in the position of Regional
Director for both surviving regions; and
(d) A majority of the voting NBRC members residing in both surviving regions
have approved the split through a vote verified by a national NBRC officer
appointed by the NBRC President.
In the case of approved regional splits, if either surviving region shall fail to earn
at least one qualifier in either of the succeeding two years following the regional
split, the regional split shall be recommended for nullification by vote of the
Executive Committee, reinstating the previous single region with its previous
boundaries.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 23-0 vote. 14 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 01-15-15
________________________________________________–__
TIES IN NBRC COMPETITION
NBRC Item 2015-006
No provision in club policy existed to address a tie score in a regional or final fly
championship competition, and while chances of an occurrence are uncommon,
it was determined that the scenario be addressed and language incorporated into
the fly policy as a preventive measure. A few ties have occurred but fortunately
none for a qualifying spot or win that resulted in EC intervention for resolve or
had financial impact. This proposed legislation would define what would happen
in case of a tie. Furthermore, the proposal would address that a “score required”
provision be added in the policy so that a flier must post at least more than
a 0 in order to qualify. While chances of this happening are slim, it could happen
in a smaller region where nobody scores and all that recorded 0’s would tie for
the qualifying spot.
Based upon a few days of discussion by the members of the EC, this issue was
introduced into a formal proposal NBRC 2015-006, with wording regarding the
requirement that a score must be posted in order to qualify for finals competition
and for Master Flier points be passed. Language was also added regarding the
related issue of the options available for the same fliers that win more than one
qualifying spot in the finals, as this issue is a recurring one that frequently brings
debate as to how to handle it when occurring.
While most of the EC appeared to favor the proposal that in the case of a tie, both
competitors should be eligible for the finals, there was also a predominant view
that only one winner should be declared, and that should be based on some
criteria or component of the score.
NBRC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FLY POLICY – NBRC 001
NBRC 001.05 currently reads: The NBRC National Fly Director shall, on behalf of
the NBRC and within ninety (90) days of the completion of the competition, award
a suitable plaque or trophy to the following:
a) The National Championship Fly winners in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit
competitions.
b) The Regional Qualifier (s) in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit competitions.
c) The National Championship Fly Finals Judge.
d) Various and sundry achievements by fliers that are deserving of a special
recognition award, as determined by the National Fly Director and approved by
the NBRC President.
Proposed revision of 001.05 would read:
- In the event that the same flier wins more than one qualifying spot in the finals,
the flier is entitled to fly both kits in the finals if he so desires. In the alternative,
he may choose to defer one of his qualifying spots in the finals to the flier with
the next highest score. - In the event of a tied score for any qualifying slot in any NCF regional
competition, both kits shall be entitled to be flown in the NCF finals round and to
receive the same regional ranking and Master Flier points. If two kits tie for the
first qualifier in a region earning two qualifiers, two kits will have qualified. If two
kits tie for the second qualifier in a region earning two qualifiers, three kits will
have qualified. - In the event of a tied score for the first place position in the NCF finals, any
financial incentive awarded, which would ordinarily be awarded to a single
winner, shall be calculated for both individuals and the total amount shall be
equally divided between the two winners. If either or both tied winners cannot
personally make up the difference in cost to travel to the annual convention, the
unused portion of money shall remain in the NBRC treasury, or otherwise utilized
as the Executive Committee may determine at the time, in light of all the
surrounding circumstances - In order to qualify for the finals or to earn any Master Flier points, a flier (kit)
must score at least one break in the 20 Bird Fly and 1 point in the 11 Bird Fly.
Fliers (kits) with a score of zero, DQ or DNF are ineligible for Master Flier points
or for participation in the Finals competitions. - The NBRC National Fly Director shall, on behalf of the NBRC and within ninety
(90) days of the completion of the competition, award a suitable plaque or trophy
to the following:
a) The National Championship Fly winners in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit
competitions.
b) The Regional Qualifier(s) in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit competitions.
c) The National Championship Fly Finals Judge.
d) Various and sundry achievements by fliers that are deserving of a special
recognition award, as determined by the National Fly Director and approved by
the NBRC President.
It was decided that each new line item (1-4) would be voted upon individually.
NBRC 2015-006 – Paragraph 1 - In the event that the same flier wins more than one qualifying spot in the finals,
the flier is entitled to fly both kits in the finals if he so desires. In the alternative,
he may choose to defer one of his qualifying spots in the finals to the flier with
the next highest score.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 20-1 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-23-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING NBRC FLY RULES AND FLY POLICIES
NBRC Item 2015-002
The EC spent several days discussing alleged cheating that occurred in the
National Championship Fly, involving competitors flying the same birds twice in
the same 20-bird competitions. This violation transpired in Southern California
and was a topic of discussion on a number of internet roller forums and
Facebook pages. Several members contacted club officers challenging why the
NBRC and World Cup have “looked the other way” for so long and refused to
address this matter, prompting it to become an EC business item.
Several Southern California fliers indicated that they do not believe the NBRC’s
rule prohibiting flying the same birds twice in the same competition is fair to them
because they believe they have more BOP problems than anyone else in the
country, and that the best way to get the best kit to represent the region
twice is to fly the same kit twice or to replace birds lost (due to BOP) in the
second kit, with birds from the first team that was flown. They also believe that
they cannot enforce this rule, unless bands are checked,
which is impractical and a practice that is not recommended by NBRC Fly Rules.
This practice is facilitated in those regions by the region’s practice of flying two
entries by the same flier on different days rather than back to back on the same
day. Many members indicate that this practice is widespread in the regions,
although several others maintained that not everyone is involved, and that they,
personally, do not violate the rules and cheat, which handicaps them in the region
competing against fliers who do so.
It became apparent after hundreds of postings that there was no simple solution
to this problem, after a great deal of excellent discussion of the many variables
and considerations in resolving the issue of the regions that have facilitated
flying the same birds twice in NBRC competitions, by flying their birds on
different weekends, and by RDs who have not enforced the rules of NBRC
competitions.
Possible solutions that stemmed from the lengthy debate included:
ï‚· The NBRC should extend the requirement in the Family Membership program
to all multiple kit entries at the same location in NBRC competitions; that being
that multiple entries should be flown in succession with a one-hour flying time
limit on the first kit before the release of the second kit; or during the same day,
at the RD and judge’s discretion.
ï‚· The NBRC should make no changes to the existing Fly Rules except to require
verification of the birds by checking band numbers, using colored ties, or
duct-taping kit box doors to ensure that the same birds are not flown twice.
ï‚· The NBRC should restructure its competitions rules to allow only 1 kit entry in
the 11-bird and 1 entry in the 20-bird competitions with a provision of adopting
fewer kits needed for the first qualifier in regions with few fliers.
ï‚· The NBRC should allow all competitors to fly two kits in all NBRC
competitions–either two different kits in the same competition, or the same kit
twice in the same competition.
ï‚· The NBRC should adopt the philosophy that “cheaters never win” and make no
changes in the rules to remedy this issue at this time; but should publish
penalties for violators and emphasize that members ought to follow the rules and
Regional Directors need to enforce them in the future.
President Cliff Ball addressed the EC with this statement to open up the voting
phase:
“Before we move forward with the discussion on modifying any NBRC Bylaws or
Policies in the wake of the NBRC violations of the rule against flying the same
birds twice in the same competition, it will help to clarify that decision if we get
the penalty phase of that discussion out of the way first.” “It might simplify things
if we first clarify what we feel are appropriate penalties for the violations of
certain NBRC Fly Rules or Fly Policies that have been brought up. NBRC
Proposal 2015-002 proposes basic penalties as have been recommended by
various members of the Executive Committee during the recent discussions
concerning Fly Rule violations. Recommended additions to the existing Fly
Policies are (underlined) below:
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING NBRC FLY RULES AND FLY POLICIES
NBRC Item 2015-002
NBRC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FLY POLICY
001.01 Fly Rules will be promulgated by the Executive Committee and published
in the NBRC Bulletin prior to the fly and published on a continuous basis on the
NBRC website. Any changes to the Fly Rules proposed by the Executive
Committee must be approved by a majority vote of the previous NBRC National
Championship Fly participants. Violations of the NBRC Fly Rules will result in
suspension of the flier from NBRC competition for a period of three years, as well
as the loss of all Master Flier points on record that have been accumulated by the
flier. Second offenders will be banned from all future competitions in the NBRC.
001.04 A flyer may enter a maximum of two kits. Any two kits flown in the same
competition, either the 11-bird or the 20-bird competition, must be composed of
completely different birds. Flying any of the same birds in two kits that are flown
in the same 11-bird or 20-bird venue will result in the flyer being disqualified.
However, the same birds may be flown in two different kits that are entered and
flown, one in each of the 11-bird and 20-bird competitions without
disqualification. In his discretion, the judge may confirm the composition of the
kits by any means he deems appropriate under the circumstances. Judges are
cautioned to avoid handling the pigeons entered in competition prior to their
being liberated. Competitors that refuse to grant visual access and proximity to
the kit boxes by the Regional Director and Judge for the purposes of validating
when rollers or kits have landed and confirming the kit boxes from which
competition kits are released, will not be scored and the kits will be disqualified.
Vote Result: The item failed to pass the committee by a vote of 6-13. 20 Members
did not vote.
Rejection Date: 02-09-15
The necessary quorum vote to conduct business was not met so the vote is
invalidated.
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING NBRC FLY RULES AND FLY POLICIES
NBRC Item 2015-003
Item 2015-002 was modified and reintroduced to the EC for further discussion and
debate. President Ball stressed the need for everyone on the committee to be
flexible, as it was “on the verge of conveying to the members that there will be no
penalty for violating its Fly Rules because it cannot reach a consensus of
opinion on the penalty that should be imposed.” Instead of “looking at the big
picture and passing a reasonable proposal”, each individual member was
negative on every proposal “unless the detail of every provision was exactly the
way he personally wanted it to be.” Ball stated that he could not “possibly write a
proposal that would satisfy each particular requirement of 39 men.” This was in
reference to one member voting “no” unless it provided for a one-year penalty,
another not voting unless it was a three-year penalty, another wanting five years,
or lifetime… one member voting only for a full revoking of Master Flier points
with another wanting no Master Flier points revoked, etc.
Ball emphasized that the EC could not continue to re-hash the issue indefinitely
when it was apparent that the members were unwilling to compromise. “We are
only successful as an Executive Committee when we are all willing to
compromise on the details. Please re-consider whether this proposal is
reasonable as a penalty and as a deterrent to Fly Rule violations and cast your
vote accordingly for the betterment of the NBRC.”
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING NBRC FLY RULES AND FLY POLICIES
NBRC Item 2015-003
NBRC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FLY POLICY
I have revised proposal NBRC 2015-002, based on the comments of the members,
to eliminate the loss of Master Flyer points for the first violation. At this time,
please cast your vote for NBRC 2015-003 below:
NBRC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FLY POLICY
001.01 Fly Rules will be promulgated by the Executive Committee and published
in the NBRC Bulletin prior to the fly and published on a continuous basis on the
NBRC website. Any changes to the Fly Rules proposed by the Executive
Committee must be approved by a majority vote of the previous NBRC National
Championship Fly participants. Violations of the NBRC Fly Rules will result in
suspension of the flier from NBRC competition for a period of three years.
Second offenders will be banned from all future competitions in the NBRC and all
accumulated NBRC Master Flier Points will be revoked.
001.04 A flyer may enter a maximum of two kits. Any two kits flown in the same
competition, either the 11- bird or the 20-bird competition, must be composed of
completely different birds. Flying any of the same birds in two kits that are flown
in the same 11-bird or 20-bird venue will result in the flyer being disqualified.
However, the same birds may be flown in two different kits that are entered and
flown, one in each of the 11-bird and 20-bird competitions without
disqualification. In his discretion, the judge may confirm the composition of the
kits by any means he deems appropriate under the circumstances. Judges are
cautioned to avoid handling the pigeons entered in competition prior to their
being liberated. Competitors that refuse to grant visual access and proximity to
the kit boxes by the Regional Director and Judge for the purposes of validating
when rollers or kits have landed and confirming the kit boxes from which
competition kits are released, will not be scored and the kits will be disqualified.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 15-6 vote. 15 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 02-11-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
NBRC 2015-004 – NBRC FLY POLICY REGARDING FLYING MULTIPLE KIT
ENTRIES
NBRC Item 2015-004
President Ball addressed the Executive Members:
The tally for the straw poll conducted on the possible solutions to the problem of
competitors that violate the rules by flying the same birds twice in the same
competition, resulted in a clear majority favoring
Solution #1 as the best solution to deal with the issue. The Executive Committee
has now passed penalties that would be imposed (NBRC 2015-003) when those
violations do occur. The discussions will now return to the best way to prevent
regions from facilitating those violations by flying their second kits on different
weekends, thus allowing the same birds to be flown again without detection. It is
evident that many members of the Executive Committee are weary of this
discussion. I would ask that each of you, please, do not allow your impatience to
divert your attention from the seriousness of these violations to members of
other regions who cannot be granted that same privilege of flying their same kit
twice to get the best score in order to qualify for the finals in their region. This is
clearly unfair, and is perceived as being so by many members of the NBRC who
have called for action to stop these violations.
Solution #1: The NBRC should modify the policy in the Family Membership
Program and extend it to all NBRC competitors who enter and fly multiple kits at
the same location in the same NBRC competition (either the 11-bird or the 20-bird)
as follows: multiple entries should be flown in succession with a one-hour
flying time limit on the first kit before the release of the second kit; or during the
same day, at the RD and judge’s discretion.
NBRC Fly Policy 001-04 currently reads:
001.04 A flyer may enter a maximum of two kits. Any two kits flown in the same
competition, either the 11- bird or the 20-bird competition, must be composed of
completely different birds. Flying any of the same birds in two kits that are flown
in the same 11-bird or 20-bird venue will result in the flyer being disqualified.
However, the same birds may be flown in two different kits that are entered and
flown, one in each of the 1-bird and 20-bird competitions without disqualification.
In his discretion, the judge may confirm the composition of the kits by any means
he deems appropriate under the circumstances. Judges are cautioned to avoid
handling the pigeons entered in competition prior to their being liberated.
(a) Participation of Flyers under NBRC Family Memberships. Each named
member of the household that is eligible for family membership is eligible to
participate in the NBRC National Championship Fly competitions the same as any
standard club member (per Article III, Membership and Dues, Section I), subject to
the following guidelines:
(i) only one “Did Not Fly” per family membership may be applied toward the
number of kits necessary
to earn qualifiers for the finals competitions; and
(ii) kits flown under family memberships, if flown consecutively, will be allotted a
maximum of one hour for each kit flown in the regional fly schedule. This time
may be extended at the discretion of the Regional Director. Those kits that remain
aloft longer than the recommended one hour of flying time, may result in the
fliers(s) receiving a DNF for successive kits that were entered, but cannot
be flown in the time allotted, at the discretion of the Regional Director.
All kits that are flown by different family members in the household must be
composed of different birds.
All the requirements of 001.04 concerning flying the same birds in any two kits
also apply to the kits flown through NBRC family memberships. In the event of a
disqualification for a violation of 001.04 in the kits flown under the family
membership, both fliers will be disqualified.
To be amended as follows, changing sections (i) and (ii):
(i) only one “Did Not Fly” may be applied per family membership, or in any other
situation where multiple entries are flown from the same location by the same
NBRC member, toward the number of kits necessary to earn qualifiers for the
region in the finals competitions;
(ii) multiple kits entered by the same NBRC member and flown from the same
location will be allotted one hour for each kit flown. The second kit must be
released immediately at the end of one hour, whether the first kit is still airborne,
or otherwise when the first kit lands and traps in, whenever the judge and scribe
have announced that they are ready. The judge and/or Regional Director may
extend this time on an as-needed basis, in the event of delays caused by severe
weather conditions or in the event of interference from a bird of prey as
determined by the mutual decision of the judge and the Regional Director. The
second kit may also be postponed until later that same day in order to stay on
schedule, at the discretion of the Regional Director and judge. Kits that otherwise
fail to land within the allotted one-hour time limit, resulting in the two kits joining
together upon the release of the second kit, will result in the disqualification of
the second kit. The second kit released may be scored until such time as the
judge determines that any of the birds from the two kits have become
intermingled at which time he will announce the disqualification of the second kit.
This same policy applies to each successive kit that is flown at the
location of multiple entries as may occur in family memberships.
NBRC 2015-004 – NBRC FLY POLICY REGARDING FLYING MULTIPLE KIT
ENTRIES
The Committee was instructed that the provisions of this proposal would be
voted upon separately in two
parts; one vote for section (i) and one vote for section (ii).
NBRC 2015-004 (i) NBRC FLY POLICY REGARDING FLYING MULTIPLE KIT
ENTRIES
The current proposal, NBRC 2015-004, seeks to amend as follows, changing
sections (i) to read:
(i) only one “Did Not Fly” may be applied per family membership, or in any other
situation where multiple entries are flown from the same location by the same
NBRC member, toward the number of kits necessary to earn qualifiers for the
region in the finals competitions;
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-3 vote. 15 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 02-19-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
NBRC 2015-004 (ii) NBRC FLY POLICY REGARDING FLYING MULTIPLE KIT
ENTRIES
The current proposal, NBRC 2015-004, seeks to amend as follows, changing
sections (ii) to read:
(ii) multiple kits entered by the same NBRC member and flown from the same
location (Individual Membership or Family Membership Plan) will be allotted a
maximum time on the regional schedule to be determined by the Regional
Director up to, but not to exceed, a total of one hour per kit entered (two
hours for two kits flown, three hours for three kits flown, etc.). The allotted time
on the schedule for multiple kit entries must be announced by the Regional
Director at the time the schedule is released to the region. The Regional Director
(or the judge in the absence of the RD) may extend the competitors time, on an
as-needed basis during the competition, in the event of delays caused by severe
weather conditions or in the event of interference from a bird of prey, but it must
be completed it on the same day. Each kit, subsequent to the first, may be
released at any time at the discretion of the flier as the kits fly their time, land,
and trap in, whenever the judge and scribe have announced that they are ready
for the next kit. Kits that fail to land within the suggested one-hour time limit may
result in the release of a second kit, at the discretion of the flier, which could
result in the two kits joining together at some point. The second kit released will
be scored only until such time as the judge determines that any of the birds from
the two kits have become intermingled. At that time, the judge will announce the
cessation of scoring of the second kit, and the second kit’s score will be
tabulated and recorded for the time flown up to the point of co-mingling. All kit
releases and scoring will be halted at the end of the allotted time for the number
of kits entered by the flier. Any kits that are not released at that time, due to
excessive flying time for previous kits, are disqualified. Subsequent kits may also
be postponed until later that same day in order to stay on schedule, at the
discretion of the Regional Director (or the judge upon the absence of the RD)
when time is of the essence. This same policy applies to each successive
kit that is flown at the location of multiple entries as may occur in family
memberships.
All kits that are flown by multiple kits entered by the same member, or by different
family members in one household, must be composed of different birds. All the
requirements of 001.04 concerning flying the same birds in any two kits applies to
the multiple kits entered by one member, as well as to those entered through
NBRC family memberships. In the event of a disqualification for a violation of
001.04
in the kits flown under the family membership, both fliers will be disqualified.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 15-10. 12 Members did
not vote.
Acceptance Date: 02-26-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
NBRC 2015-006 – Paragraph 2
Following additional discussion, the EC chose between two wordings for the
second paragraph of 001.05 with the majority becoming law.
2A. In the event of a tied score in any NBRC NCF competition, both kits shall be
declared winners and shall receive the same ranking and Master Flier points. If
the tie occurs in the qualifying slot in any NBRC NCF regional competition, both
kits shall be entitled to be flown in the NCF finals round and to receive the same
regional ranking and Master Flier points.
2B. In the event of a tied score for any NBRC NCF competition, the winner will be
determined in the 20-bird competition by the highest quality multiplier. In the
event of a tie in the quality multiplier, the winner will be determined by the team
with the highest depth multiplier. In the event of a tie in quality and depth
multipliers, the winner shall be determined by the team with the largest number of
birds in a single break. In the event of a tie in the11-bird competition, the winner
shall be determined by the kit with the highest total number of speed and depth
bonuses. In the event of a tie in both Speed and Depth bonuses, the winner shall
be determined by the kit that scored the highest number of 3s. In either the
20-bird competition or the 11-bird competition, in the event the two teams are still
tied after each of these tie-breaking factors are taken into account, both teams
shall be declared winners. If such a tie still occurs at this point in the qualifying
slot in any NBRC NCF regional competition, both teams shall be entitled to be
flown in the NCF Finals round and to receive the same regional ranking and
Master Flier points
Vote Result: The Executive Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of
paragraph 2A item which passed the
committee by a 17-3 vote over 2B. 17 Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-24-15
At this point, NBRC 001.05 now read:
- In the event that the same flier wins more than one qualifying spot in the finals,
the flier is entitled to fly both kits in the finals if he so desires. In the alternative,
he may choose to defer one of his qualifying spots in the finals to the flier with
the next highest score. - In the event of a tied score in any NBRC NCF competition, both kits shall be
declared winners and shall receive the same ranking and Master Flier points. If
the tie occurs in the qualifying slot in any NBRC NCF regional competition, both
kits shall be entitled to be flown in the NCF finals round and to receive the same
regional ranking and Master Flier points.
NBRC 2015-006 – Paragraph 3
Next, the EC chose between two options for the third paragraph of 001.05, based
on the two dominant opinions expressed by the members of the Executive
Committee during the discussion period.
3A. In the event of a tied score for the first place position in the NCF finals, any
financial incentive awarded, which would ordinarily be awarded to a single
winner, shall be calculated for both individuals and the total amount shall be
equally divided between the two winners. If either or both tied winners cannot
personally make up the difference in cost to travel to the annual convention, the
unused portion of money shall remain in the NBRC treasury, or otherwise utilized
as the Executive Committee may determine at the time, in light of all the
surrounding circumstances.
3B. In the event of a tied score for the first place position in the NCF finals, any
financial incentive that is usually awarded to a single winner will be awarded to
both winners.
Vote Result: The quorum was established and the Executive Committee voted in
favor of paragraph 3B as the NBRC’s policy regarding dealing with a tie in the
NCF. The item passed the committee by a 15-4 vote over choice 3A. 18 Members
did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-24-15
At this point, NBRC 001.05 now read: - In the event that the same flier wins more than one qualifying spot in the finals,
the flier is entitled to fly both kits in the finals if he so desires. In the alternative,
he may choose to defer one of his qualifying spots in the finals to the flier with
the next highest score. - In the event of a tied score in any NBRC NCF competition, both kits shall be
declared winners and shall receive the same ranking and Master Flier points. If
the tie occurs in the qualifying slot in any NBRC NCF regional competition, both
kits shall be entitled to be flown in the NCF finals round and to receive the same
regional ranking and Master Flier points. - In the event of a tied score for the first place position in the NCF finals, any
financial incentive that is usually awarded to a single winner will be awarded to
both winners.
NBRC 2015-006 – Paragraph 4
To conclude voting on this item, the EC voted on Paragraph 4 which read: - In order to qualify for the finals or to earn any Master Flier points, a flier (kit)
must score at least one break in the 20 Bird Fly and/or 1 point in the 11 Bird Fly.
Fliers (kits) with a score of zero, DQ or DNF are ineligible for Master Flier points
or for participation in the Finals of the NBRC National Championship competition.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 20-0 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-30-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
THE FINAL VERSION OF NBRC FLY POLICY 001.05 READ: - In the event that the same flier wins more than one qualifying spot in the finals,
the flier is entitled to fly both kits in the finals if he so desires. In the alternative,
he may choose to defer one of his qualifying spots in the finals to the flier with
the next highest score. - In the event of a tied score in any NBRC NCF competition, both kits shall be
declared winners and shall receive the same ranking and Master Flier points. If
the tie occurs in the qualifying slot in any NBRC NCF regional competition, both
kits shall be entitled to be flown in the NCF finals round and to receive the same
regional ranking and Master Flier points. - In the event of a tied score for the first place position in the NCF finals, any
financial incentive that is usually awarded to a single winner will be awarded to
both winners. - In order to qualify for the finals or to earn any Master Flier points, a flier (kit)
must score at least one break in the 20 Bird Fly and/or 1 point in the 11 Bird Fly.
Fliers (kits) with a score of zero, DQ or DNF are ineligible for Master Flier points
or for participation in the Finals of the NBRC National Championship
competition. - The NBRC National Fly Director shall, on behalf of the NBRC and within ninety
(90) days of the completion of the competition, award a suitable plaque or trophy
to the following:
a) The National Championship Fly winners in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit
competitions.
b) The Regional Qualifier (s) in each of the 20-bird kit and 11-bird kit competitions.
c) The National Championship Fly Finals Judge.
d) Various and sundry achievements by fliers that are deserving of a special
recognition award, as determined by the National Fly Director and approved by
the NBRC President.
VOTING PROCEDURE
NBRC Item 2015-007
A proposal was presented to the EC to advance the timing of the NBRC general
election steps. Doing so would create a smoother transition of newly-elected
officers, particularly the offices of Publishing Editor and Public Relations
Director, which have historically have been appointed positions, and the office of
Secretary-Treasurer, who previously was elected to a two-year term. All three are
now elected positions serving a four-year term as dictated by EC legislation
passed in 2014.
Under the existing Bylaws, for a brief period the club would technically have no
one seated in these three vital positions if the current occupants decided to not
seek office. Because their terms would end on December 31, under existing
policy it would also be late February before NBRC members knew who was
holding office.
The new timeframe proposed would allow membership to be aware of everyone
occupying office at the beginning of the new year. Currently, if the Publishing
Editor, for example, did not seek election, the new office-holder as it now stands
won’t know of his or her election until the end of December and would only
have a couple of weeks to get a Bulletin prepared and in the mail, which is not
possible. This would also apply to the Secretary-Treasurer and financial
accounting for the club. A newly elected officer, if aware in early November that
he will be seated in January, would benefit from a 6-8 week period to transfer
records, etc. and allow for a smoother, timelier transition, causing minimal
disruption to club administrative activity.
As it stands, the current dates specified in the bylaws do not coincide with
bulletin deadlines or its distribution, which also preventing members from being
informed in a more preferred, timely manner. To emphasize this point, election
ballots are currently counted in December. The results are forwarded to the
Publishing Editor for publishing in the next bulletin, which is the
January-February issue. This particular issue reaches the members in February,
meaning that the newly elected officers have been seated for weeks without the
general membership knowing who they are.
Advancing the process by two months will alleviate much of the “rush” and
ensure that the entire membership, not just those on Internet lists, are aware of
the administrators at the time of assuming office.
The existing bylaw, Article VI – Biennial Election, was presented to the
committee for review, followed by the proposed amendment
EXISTING NBRC BYLAW
Article VI — Biennial Election
Section 1. The biennial election of the NBRC shall be conducted in the following
manner:
a) On or before August 1st preceding the election date, the President shall
appoint an Election Chairman. Once the Election Chairman is appointed, an
announcement will be made to the Executive Committee and the NBRC
Membership Forum will also be copied.
b) The Election Chairman shall canvas all elected members of the Executive
Committee to solicit their recommendations for candidates. Furthermore, any
member in good standing may propose the name of a candidate in writing to the
Election Chairman for its consideration. If possible, there needs to be at least two
candidates for each National and Regional office within the club. The Election
Chairman’s list shall be delivered to the Secretary-Treasurer and Publishing
Editor on or before October 1st of the election year.
c) Before placing the name of any candidate on the ballot, the Nominating
Committee shall first secure the prospective candidates acceptance in writing.
d) The National Secretary-Treasurer will prepare the ballot for all members so that
it can be included in the next issue of the NBRC Bulletin. Family memberships
shall be eligible for one vote in the election of NBRC officers or for any other
matter brought before the club membership for voting.
e) All ballots must be returned and in the hands of the Nominating Committee on
or before December 1st of the election year.
f) Ballots may be cast in secret, using club-printed ballots and mailed to a
designated site chosen by the Election Chairman, or cast on the NBRC Website
(nbrconline.org) by any active paid member with Internet access. The counting of
the ballots shall be done by the Election Chairman with at least two members of
the NBRC to witness the tabulation. The Election Chairman and the names of the
members serving as witnesses shall be published along with the results of the
election in the first NBRC Bulletin after the count. Any member in good standing
has the right to be present at the counting of the ballots.
g) Receiving a plurality of votes cast shall constitute election of a candidate.
h) The election of Regional Directors will be conducted by each prospective
region. Eligibility to vote for any Regional Director will be limited to members who
reside within that given region.
Section 2. Biennial Election Timeline
a) May – June — The President appoints the Chairman of the Election Committee.
b) July – August — The Chairman appoints a Nominating Committee consisting
of four people (1 from each time zone or general geographic area if possible)
across the country to assist him in finding candidates for each office.
c) September – October — The Bulletin contains the Election Ballot.
d) November – December — The Chairman of the Election Committee appoints a
Vote -Counting Committee.
The Vote Counting Committee shall consist of 2-3 current NBRC members willing
to volunteer for the task. Vote
Counting Members cannot also be candidates in the election being verified.
Section 3. Standard Procedure for Collecting and Counting Votes
a) All envelopes remain unopened as mail is delivered to the Chairman’s home or
specified address by a specified Saturday date in December. This date marks the
deadline. Votes received on the following Monday or later should be discarded
and not included.
b) The Chairman needs to assemble a vote counting committee consisting of
two-three members other than himself who will verify the counts and integrity of
the count. These members will meet within 7 days of the designated deadline to
tally votes
c) All envelopes will be opened in the presence of the committee members.
d) The chairman must write a summary of the process, and list the number of
votes each candidate received.
e) The Election Chairman and the names of the members serving as witnesses
shall be published along with the results of the election in the first NBRC Bulletin
after the count. Any member in good standing has the right to be present at the
counting of the ballots. Since all results must be published for membership
review, even if an incumbent director is running unopposed for re-election and
will automatically win the seat, we need to record and verify votes for
accountability purposes.
f) As soon as the election results have been verified by the Election Chairman the
results should be emailed promptly to the President, Secretary-Treasurer,
webmaster, and Publishing Editor. Once the above has been completed then all
paperwork needs to be placed all in a large envelope and mailed to the club
secretary for records keeping.
—————
PROPOSED NBRC BYLAW
Article VI — Biennial Election
Section 1. General
a. Biennial Elections. Club elections are held in odd-numbered years. The
President, Vice-President, National
Fly Director, and Regional Directors are each elected for a term of two years,
commencing at 12:00 midnight
in the morning of January 1 of each even-numbered year, and ending two years
later, at 12:00 midnight in the
evening of December 31 of each odd-numbered year. The outgoing president
automatically assumes the
office of Director-at-Large for the same period. The Secretary-Treasurer,
Publishing Editor, and Public
Relations Director are each elected for a term of four years, commencing at 12:00
midnight in the morning of
January 1 after the election and ending four years later, at 12:00 midnight in the
evening of December 31.
b. Email or other Voting Procedures. The voting procedures set out in this Article
VI shall be employed for voting
by Club-provided paper ballots. At the time this Bylaw Article is approved, the
Club has not yet provided for
emailing of ballots or for online voting.
Section 2. Election Timeline
The timeline for conducting the biennial election shall proceed as follows (all
dates are for the odd-numbered year during which the election is conducted):
a. Not later than April 20 of the election year, the President shall appoint an
Election Chairman (in this Article, the “Chairman”) and shall advise the
membership of the appointment through the Executive Committee and
the NBRC Membership Forum.
b. Not later than May 20, the Chairman shall appoint the Nominating Committee
consisting of the Chairman and four Club members (preferably, each residing in
different time zones), to secure candidates for each elected office.
(1) At least two candidates for each national elected office shall be secured.
Where two candidates cannot be secured for any regional director office, one
candidate may suffice, as determined by the Nominating Committee.
(2) By written letter or email to the Chairman, members in good standing may
nominate potential candidates for consideration. The Nominating Committee may
also canvas the Executive Committee for nominations.
(3) Before approving any nominee, the Nominating Committee shall contact the
nominee to obtain consent to enter the nominee’s name on the ballot for the
office in question and to verify the nominee’s willingness to serve in the office if
elected.
c. Not later than June 20, the Chairman shall deliver the Nominating Committee’s
list of approved nominees to the Club Secretary-Treasurer and to the Publishing
Editor.
d. Not later than July 1, the Secretary-Treasurer shall verify that each nominee is
dues-current (thereby being eligible for election), and shall notify the Publishing
Editor of his findings.
e. Between July 1 and July 10, the Publishing Editor shall prepare the election
ballot and related voting information for inclusion in the July-August issue of the
NBRC Bulletin, to be received by the membership at
the end of August.
(1) Secret Balloting. Ballots shall be cast in secret using club-printed ballot forms
and mailed by U.S. Postal Service to a designated address determined by the
Chairman. The address shall be in the following form:
“NBRC Ballot, c/o (name), address)”. Minor errors in envelope addressing shall
not invalidate ballots.
(2) Ballot Content. In addition to the list of candidates for office and the
designated mailing address, the ballots shall advise members:
(i) Of the postmark cut-off date of October 1 for ballot eligibility;
(ii) That only ballots from the NBRC Bulletin are valid (photocopied ballots are not
valid); and
(iii) That eligibility to vote for any Regional Director is limited to members
residing within that region.
f. Not later than July 10, the Publishing Editor and Secretary-Treasurer shall
ensure that the July-August NBRC Bulletin containing the ballot and related
election information is delivered to the printers for mailing so as to reach
members by the end of August.
g. Not later than September 1, the Chairman shall appoint a Vote Counting
Committee consisting of the Chairman and at least two Club members residing in
proximity to the Election Chairman. Election candidates are not eligible to serve
on the Vote Counting Committee.
h. As of October 10, all ballots must be returned and in the possession of the
Chairman.
i. Between October 10 and October 20, the Vote Counting Committee shall
assemble to open the balloting envelopes, to count the ballots received, and to
verify the accuracy and integrity of the count. The vote counting shall proceed as
follows:
(1) Ballots are not to be Opened Early. Envelopes containing ballots shall remain
unopened until the vote counting meeting. Accidental, early opening of envelopes
shall not invalidate those ballots. All ballots received by October 10 shall be
counted, regardless of envelope postmark date. Any ballots received after
October 10 shall be ineligible but shall be retained as “voting paperwork” to be
forwarded to the Secretary-Treasurer as provided below.
(2) Vote Counting. All envelopes shall be opened by the Chairman in the presence
of the full Committee. The Chairman, and only the Chairman, shall examine the
envelope postmark and staple the envelope to the back of the ballot to prevent
the front of the envelope from being examined by other Committee members,
to enhance voting secrecy. Each ballot shall be passed individually from one
member to the next, with all Committee members agreeing to the eligibility of
each ballot, each vote, and the tabulation of votes.
(3) Secrecy. Although the Chairman may have observed envelope return
addresses, he shall maintain secrecy with respect to how any member may have
voted, and shall not at any time disclose to any other individuals, including the
members of the Vote Counting Committee, how any member may have voted.
(4) Vote Invalidation. Only original ballots removed from the NBRC Bulletin shall
be valid. Photocopied ballots shall be invalid. Ballots shall not be invalidated
merely because a member’s name or signature has been entered on the ballot at
time of voting. A single omitted or erroneous vote need not necessarily
invalidate other votes appearing on a ballot. In his sole discretion, the Chairman
may re-examine the postmarked envelope to verify the region from which the
ballot was mailed. In the event of errors or ambiguities on any ballot, the Vote
Counting Committee shall determine the outcome of any such ballot by majority
vote
(5) Vote Tie-Breaking. In the event of a tie vote result for any Regional Director
office, the Chairman shall notify the Club President of the tie result and the
President shall make the final decision after considering the nominees and
interviewing them if necessary. In the event of a tie vote result for any national,
non regional office, the Chairman shall notify the President of the tie result and
the President shall present the matter for discussion and vote of the Executive
Committee to break the tie. In the event that the Executive Committee vote does
not break the tie, the individual office shall be subject to a new vote of the
membership, presented in the next available Club bulletin.
(6) Election by Plurality. Receiving a plurality of votes cast shall constitute
election of a candidate.
(7) One Member, One Vote. In the election of Club officers or for other matters
brought before the Club membership for voting, each Club member shall be
eligible to return one ballot; family memberships are eligible to return one ballot.
(8) Other Witnesses. Any NBRC member in good standing has the right to be
present at the counting of the ballots by the Vote Counting Committee.
j. Within 24 hours of the meeting of the Vote Counting Committee, the Election
Chairman shall email the election results to the Club President, the
Secretary-Treasurer, and the Publishing Editor.
k. Within seven days of the meeting of the Vote Counting Committee, the Election
Chairman shall prepare and email a Voting Summary to the Club President, the
Secretary-Treasurer, and the Publishing Editor. The Voting Summary shall include
the names of all persons present during the vote counting and shall list the
number of votes each candidate received. The Election Chairman shall sign and
date the Voting Summary, attesting that the voting process was administered
fairly and free from fraud or wrongful intent. The Voting Summary shall record
and account for all votes, including votes for unopposed candidates who
automatically win the seat. The Voting Summary and election results shall be
published in the next NBRC Bulletin.
l. Within seven days of the meeting of the Vote Counting Committee, the Election
Chairman shall mail in a large sealed envelope all voting paperwork (ballots
stapled to envelopes, count sheets, and any other paperwork) to the
Secretary-Treasurer for record-keeping purposes.
m. On or before November 10, the Publishing Editor and the Secretary-Treasurer
shall ensure that the November-December NBRC Bulletin containing the election
results and Voting Summary is delivered to the printers for mailing so as to reach
members by the end of December.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 22-0 vote. 14 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 04-08-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
REGIONAL ENTRY FEES
NBRC Item 2015-008
President Cliff Ball presented the following proposal to the Executive Committee
for its discussion and
resolve:
“As you may recall, in the 2014 National Championship, the RD, Dominique
Bluett, did not send in his region’s $1500 in entry fees and ultimately stiffed the
NBRC for those funds. Unfortunately, the National Fly Director, lacking a clear
Fly Policy to guide him, sent the finals judge to the region anyway, in the belief
that the fliers in the region should not be punished for the misdeeds of the
Regional Director. This may have been the wrong tact to take since, if the fliers
did not get the finals judge because the RD has not sent in the entry fees, they
might have applied more pressure locally, to help resolve the issue before it
became critical. It is my firm opinion that regions that have not sent in their
fees for the NBRC portion of the fees and they have not been received by the Fly
Director two weeks prior to their finals date should forfeit their finals fly and the
finals judge will not be scheduled for their region. Such a policy will give the
National Fly Director, the Regional Director and the competitors clear Policy to
refer to when and if this issue ever arises again
The NBRC Fly Policy Introduction currently reads: 2.) In order to verify eligibility,
the names of all fliers and entry fees must be received by the National Fly
Director a minimum of seven days before the region conducts its qualifying fly.
It is proposed that # 2. be modified to read: 2.) In order to verify eligibility, the
names of all fliers and entry fees must be received by the National Fly Director a
minimum of fourteen days before the region conducts its qualifying fly. Regions
who have not sent in the NBRC portion of the fees, and they have not been
received by the NBRC Fly Director two weeks prior to the proposed date for
their finals fly, will forfeit their finals fly and the finals judge will not be scheduled
for their region.
This was a controversial issue with RDs having differing opinions on the
effectiveness and management of the proposed policy. In realizing that every RD
would be affected by this policy, President Ball stressed during the voting phase
that each one review his position on the proposal on to establish consequences
for not paying the regional fees to the NBRC, and cast a vote.
Opponents indicated that the policy would not eliminate thievery, and penalizing
participants because an RD stole their entry money or failed to meet the deadline
was not justifiable punishment. Expressing sentiment that it shouldn’t be the
members/flyers responsibility to police their RD, they felt it was unfair to
disallow participation because of something outside of their control.
Proponents emphasized that the proposal was a good measure because it puts
the risk of loss on the fly participants, who are local and are in a far better
position to pressure the RD than is the national club. If in a situation where the
NBRC was putting on a national fly and inviting anyone who can organize
themselves into a “region” to participate, then it would seem natural for those
local “regions” to govern themselves and be responsible to elect someone to
represent them as an RD and send in their funds. Then if he defaults, he’s their
man and they will take action against him, and not blame the national club for
their local problem.
Some RDs supported utilizing a form that each RD would sign, documentation
holding them legally responsible for the monies they handle. That was dismissed
because it would require an unrealistic bonding process in order to be effective.
Others mentioned filing criminal charges but such action would require more
legal hassle and expense than worth the effort.
One aspect suggested as being critical is that the NBRC defines reasonable
deadlines and then enforces them, just as the World Cup has and does. Ball
noted that “the current proposal imposes two deadlines, where previously there
was only one. The deadline for fees before the regionals are flown was increased
to two weeks in order to give the Fly Director and Secretary-Treasurer a little
more time to send out fly pins and score pads, and to verify memberships. So
there would still be a huge amount of leniency for the Fly Director to “use
discretion region by region and situation by situation”. But the most important
aspect of this proposal is that it provides a “drop-dead” deadline of two weeks
before the finals (which could be months later) for the region’s entry fees to be
sent in or they will forfeit their finals fly and the finals judge would not be
scheduled for their region. The idea is to get the members involved in correcting
the problem (since they elected the RD) and to save the NBRC the cost of the
airfare to the region. One could argue that perhaps this even needs to be a longer
period of time in order to help ensure that the airline ticket has not yet been
purchased. One could also argue that the original policy is fine the way it is, and
we just need to enforce it and require the fees before the Regionals are flown.
That would, of course, solve all the problems. But the atmosphere of being
lenient and allowing regions to procrastinate sending in their fees until even after
the finals, without any consequences, has created the atmosphere for guys like
Dominique to remain unaccountable and the NBRC pays the price. That’s not fair
to the regions and fliers who pay their fees and pay them on time.”
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by an 11-8 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 04-23-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed for the revision of the Fly
Policy.
JUDGING RESPONSIBILITIES
NBRC Item 2015-009
The wording of NBRC Fly Policy 001.14 stated:
No judge shall judge his own kit in any NBRC National Championship Fly
competition. In the event that a judge is judging his own region, he may enter a
kit in the specific 20-bird or 11-bird competition format(s) he is judging. However,
rather than judging his own kit, the judge’s kit will be awarded a DNF, meaning
‘Did Not Fly’. Alternately, a panel of two or more judges may be appointed solely
to judge the kit of the appointed judge, or a panel of three or more judges may be
appointed to judge a region, with each of the panel judges excusing himself from
judging his own kit. Questions concerning judging proposals may be presented
to the Fly Director who will consult with the NBRC Executive Committee for
interpretation or approval where needed.
The EC discussed and subsequently voted on the proposed amendment of NBRC
Fly Policy 001.14:
The Regional Director is primarily responsible for the proper conduct and
compliance of any NCF fly competition held in his region, until “time-in” is called,
at which point the judge assumes primary responsibility while each kit is being
judged. During the judging period, the Regional Director (if present) and scribe
are expected to assist the judge in his duties, as the judge may request. The RD
and scribe are also expected to notify the judge, immediately, of out birds, down
birds, or other events affecting the judging if it appears that any such event may
have escaped the judge’s notice. No judge shall judge his own kit in any NBRC
National Championship Fly competition. In the event that a judge is judging his
own region, he may enter a kit in the specific 20-bird or 11-bird competition
format(s) he is judging. However, rather than judging his own kit, the judge’s kit
will be awarded a DNF; meaning ‘Did Not Fly’. Alternately, a panel of two or more
judges may be appointed by the Regional Director, solely to judge the kit of the
appointed judge, or a panel of three or more judges may be appointed by the
Regional Director to judge a region, with each of the panel judges excusing
himself from judging his own kit. Opponents felt that this allowance could
possibly be an unwanted distraction to the judge, and the only person that needs
to speak to the judge “while he is judging the birds” is someone the judge
requests assistance from; otherwise it is interference. It was suggested that the
policy read that any input given during that judging time be done via the scribe,
who then notifies the Judge when appropriate; that if a RD came up to the Judge
while judging and tells him “you missed” this or that, and the Judge disagrees,
then a debate could start and distract the Judge in doing his job, thus causing
interference.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by an 11-8 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 05-06-15
KIT ENTRIES FOR QUALIFYING IN NBRC COMPETITION
NBRC Item 2015-011
Since the inception of both the NBRC Fly Policy and Fly Rules, the number of kit
entries necessary to earn a qualifier in the finals in NBRC competitions was
indicated or never spelled out in writing. The question was raised from time to
time by various members, usually those interested in getting started in
competition, as to where this information could be located. As a minor
“house-keeping” item, this inclusion needed to be addressed.
NBRC Fly Policy stated in its introduction: “Out of respect for the World Cup Fly
and our members who participate in that fly, the region must conduct its NCF
qualifying fly in a manner that does not conflict with that region’s World Cup fly
qualifying and Finals Fly dates.”
It was proposed that the NBRC Fly Policy Introduction be modified to read: “Each
NBRC region may earn one qualifier in the finals for every ten kits entered in
either or both of the 11-bird and/or the 20-bird competitions. Out of respect for the
World Cup Fly and our members who participate in that fly, the region must
conduct its NCF qualifying fly in a manner that does not conflict with that region’s
World Cup fly qualifying and Finals Fly dates.”
EC members agreed that this inclusion was needed, expressing no opposition
during the discussion phase.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by an 18-0 vote. 17 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 05-15-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
PERCENTAGE OF KIT ENTRIES FLOWN FOR QUALIFYING BERTHS
NBRC Item 2015-012
NBRC Fly Policy did not officially designate the number of kits (of the kits
entered) that must actually be flown in National Championship Fly competition
events. In existence was the general “understanding” that half, or 50% of the kits
entered, must be flown, with confusion stemming from the World Cup
requirement of 50%. The adoption of similar wording by the NBRC would
eliminate the confusion among NBRC members, competitors, Regional Directors,
and other officers, and resolve a number of issues that the NBRC Fly Director
must deal with along those lines. The World Cup policy has been effective at
curbing the potential for abuse and at keeping the standards of the competition
high, and with this rule in place has eliminated problems pertaining to the number
of kits flown.
As a rule, 80% of the kits entered are flown in NBRC competition. In some
regions, however, far less than that are flown, and as it technically stood, a region
could enter 10 kits, fly only one, and it would be the qualifier. Furthermore, the
lack of an official requirement on flying the kits entered has on occasion
encouraged some regions to boost their number of qualifiers by entering two kits
for fliers that are never really intended to be flown, or do not even exist, aka
“ghost kits”. This has created a moral and ethical concern and debate among
NBRC members and competitors and officers for many years over the entry of
these “ghost” kits in some regions.
To alleviate the problem, the EC debated the issue and was asked to make the
ethical decision, as the World Cup did, to whether it is expected by the club that
kits entered in the competition are intended to be flown… or whether it is content
to collect entry fees, whether or not the kits are flown… or even if they really
exist.
NBRC Fly Policy 001-04 currently read as follows:
A flyer may enter a maximum of two kits. Any two kits flown in the same
competition, either the 11-bird or the 20-bird competition, must be composed of
completely different birds. Flying any of the same birds in two kits that are flown
in the same 11-bird or 20-bird venue will result in the flyer being disqualified.
However, the same birds may be flown in two different kits that are entered and
flown, one in each of the 11-bird and 20-bird competitions without
disqualification. In his discretion, the judge may confirm the composition of the
kits by any means he deems appropriate under the circumstances. Judges are
cautioned to avoid handling the pigeons entered in competition prior to their
being liberated.
(a). Participation of Flyers under NBRC Family Memberships/ Multiple kit entries
flown at the same location: Each named member of the household that is eligible
for family membership is eligible to participate in the NBRC National
Championship Fly competitions the same as any standard club member
(per Article III, Membership and Dues, Section I), subject to the following
guidelines:
(i) Two DNFs for a single flier may be counted towards the first qualifier only. Only
one “DNF” may be applied per family membership, or in any other situation where
multiple entries are flown from the same location to earn more than one qualifier.
If a region is unable to earn a qualifier as a result of multiple DNFs, the NBRC
share of the entry fee (minus any expenses paid by the NBRC for fly pins and
score pads for the region) will be refunded to the Regional Director, but only if the
final judge’s airline ticket to the region has not yet been purchased by the
National Fly Director.
It was proposed for Executive Committee vote that (i) be amended to read:
(i) Each region must fly a minimum of 50 percent of the kits entered for each
qualifier into the NCF finals round. Two DNFs for a single flier may be counted
towards the first qualifier only. Only one “DNF” may be applied per family
membership, or in any other situation where multiple entries are flown from the
same location to earn more than one qualifier. If a region is unable to earn a
qualifier as a result of multiple DNFs, the NBRC share of the entry fee (minus any
expenses paid by the NBRC for fly pins and score pads for the region) will be
refunded to the Regional Director, but only if the final judge’s airline ticket to the
region has not yet been purchased by the National Fly Director.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-0 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 05-28-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
RESIDENCE OF REGIONAL DIRECTORS
NBRC Item 2015-013
The NBRC did not have clear policy or bylaw coverage specifying that Regional
Directors are required to reside within the region that he or she holds office. In
the past when regional boundaries were vague and poorly defined, there were
instances resulting from division whereas a Director lived in one region, yet
served as RD for another region. The EC voted on adding a written statement to
its policy that an RD is required to live within the region that he/she represents.
It was proposed that:
NBRC Constitution and Bylaws Article VII, “Eligibility to Hold Office” under
Section 2 currently reads:
“Section 2. Any candidate for any of the elected or appointed offices of President,
Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, Director-at-Large, Publishing Editor, National
Fly Director, or any Regional Director must have been a member in good standing
for two consecutive years.”
Be amended as follows:
Section 2. Any candidate for any of the elected or appointed offices of President,
Vice President, Secretary-Treasurer, Director-at-Large, Publishing Editor, National
Fly Director, or any Regional Director must have been a member in good standing
for two consecutive years. Only those members residing within the boundaries of
an NBRC region shall be eligible to serve in the office of Regional Director of that
region. Any exception shall require a majority vote of the members of the region
(conducted by the NBRC President) followed by approval of the Executive
Committee.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-2 vote. 15 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 06-08-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENT FOR JUDGES
NBRC Item 2015-014
The EC discussed and debated an amendment that would require NBRC
membership of anyone serving as a judge for NBRC National Championship Fly
activity, both regional qualifying and Finals competition.
Due to regions desiring to obtain the most competent judge possible while also
considering cost, the majority favored policy stating that NBRC membership will
be required of a Finals Judge, but not required of a regional judge. Opponents
mostly favored a policy that all NCF judges should hold NBRC membership.
NBRC Fly Policy 001.03 read:
001.03 All NBRC National or Regional sponsored flys must be judged by the most
experienced Judge available.
To be amended as follows:
001.03 All NBRC National or Regional sponsored competitions must be judged by
the most experienced Judge available. The NBRC shall appoint a Club member to
judge the finals round of the NCF competition.
Judges of the NCF regional rounds need not be Club members.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by an 18-5 vote. 14 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 06-15-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
NEW MEXICO BOUNDARY DIVISION
NBRC Item 2015-015
Region 6B Director Johnnie Williams submitted a proposal to split New Mexico
into Eastern and Western halves along Interstate 25. The fliers are all located in
the eastern half of New Mexico and have always participated with Region 6B in
NBRC fly competitions. There are no current fliers located in the western half of
New Mexico, but should develop at a later date, Region 7B Director Carlos Padilla
has agreed to fly them. Due to the distance and travel time involved, the affected
flyers are currently using these boundaries in World Cup competition and were
doing likewise in NCF competition as recently as 2014 prior to regional
redistricting that merged the entire state as its own entity.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-0 vote. 16 Members did not
vote.
Acceptance Date: 06-23-15
The quorum was established and the proposal passed.
DEPTH STANDARDS IN NBRC FLY COMPETITION
NBRC Item 2015-016
A number of discussions among club members and competitors on internet
forums, at NBRC conventions, and during local competitions have occurred to
debate the need of increasing the 10-foot minimum depth standard for scoring to
20 feet. The discussion arose with the knowledge that it is incumbent upon the
NBRC to improve the breed; because it is difficult for judges to see 10 feet spins
at the altitudes most kits fly in; because most judges already have a personal 20
feet minimum standard that they adhere to and do not score most 10 feet spins
unless they are especially fast and high quality; and because of concerns in
some regions that some judges score flutter and poor quality performance in an
effort to comply with the 10 feet minimum rule. President Ball presented this
issue for discussion among the members of the Executive Committee to
determine whether the NBRC should raise this standard for performance Roller in
NBRC
National Championship Fly competition. If approved, the measure would then be
given consideration and voted upon by members/competitors in a special ballot
published in the NBRC Bulletin. Any change in the club’s fly rules must be
approved or rejected by fly participants only.
The general consensus during the discussion phase was that a ten-feet spin is an
acceptable achievement for rollers, not only in the US but in other countries as
well. It was felt that revising the minimum depth may reduce enthusiasm and
participation, especially by novice fliers, and that the change would not affect the
outcome of most regional or finals competitions, as the best kits win under most
any rules. It was further accepted that an increase in distance wouldn’t have any
significant influence on actual judging, especially if irds are flying at a high
altitude, and that multipliers would be more difficult to award accurately.
Item 2015-016: Authorizing a vote by the 2014 NCF fliers as to whether the NBRC
Depth Standard in the Fly
Rules should be amended to 20 feet.
Vote Result: The item failed to pass the committee by a vote of 4-18. 16 Members
did not vote. Date: 09-15-15
ESTABLISHING AN NBRC GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
NBRC Item 2015-017
On occasion the NBRC has been called upon to handle disputes and grievances
among its members.
Many of these are serious, affecting the NBRC’s reputation and integrity, as well
as the potential for legal ramifications for the organization. The NBRC currently
has no specific mechanism for dealing with these grievances. There is usually a
question among the officers of the NBRC in determining who should be
responsible to handle these issues, and how to deal with them, i.e. the President,
the officer who received the complaint, the entire Executive Committee. Members
have had no assurance that there is a specific mechanism or body in place within
the NBRC to receive and act on complaints, and as a result, they usually take no
action when they observe infractions, such as obvious cheating in National
Championship competition, etc. because many have believed that if you knew the
right people in the NBRC, you could get away the act. Others have expressed
belief that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude is in place within the NBRC
administration. Establishing a Grievance Committee will provide a consistent
mechanism for the NBRC to handle important issues and lay rumors to rest.
President Ball proposed that a permanent Grievance Committee be established in
the NBRC, endowed ith the authority to receive grievances, investigate, and act
on them.
Members discussed the committee’s functionality, and debated who would
ultimately have the authority to determine and hand down punishments…or if the
group could only make recommendations to the EC for final disposition of each
case. It was recommended that the committee include a mix of 5 key officers and
RDs, being an odd number to prevent ties in voting and a simple majority of 3 of
the 5 members would determine the disposition of each case that is heard. With a
Grievance Committee in place, members will be reassured that a disciplinary
body is in place to receive their grievances, and endowed with the power to
handle situations that occur from time to time.
Tom Monson graciously complied with the request to create an appropriate
revision to the NBRC Constitution and By-Laws in order to establish an NBRC
Grievance Committee. In considering the proper structural context for the
proposed NBRC Grievance Committee, consideration was given on whether to
retain the current provision of Article IX regarding the Removal and Appeals of
officers of the NBRC, and adding an additional Article designed to provide for
NBRC members in general, or whether to modify the current version of Article IX
to include both officers and the general membership. All the specifics were open
for discussion.
PROPOSED REVISION TO ARTICLE IX OF THE NBRC CONSTITUTION AND
BYLAWS
CURRENT VERSION:
Article IX — Removal and Appeals
Section 1. Allegations of a violation of the NBRC Constitution and By-Laws
against a member of the NBRC Executive Committee must be made in writing by
the individual bringing the charge.
Section 2. Any member in good standing may file a grievance alleging a violation
of the Constitution and By-laws against a member of the Executive Committee.
Such a charge must cite the Article and Section of the Constitution
and By-laws alleged to have been violated.
Section 3. Any such charge must be addressed to the Secretary – Treasurer and
copies served on the accused as well as other members of the Executive
Committee.
Section 4. The President will appoint a member of the Executive Committee within
30 days as a Hearing Officer to investigate the complaint. If the complaint is
against the President, the Vice President will be the appointing officer.
The Hearing Officer shall take such steps as are necessary to investigate the
allegations. A full report with recommendations will be submitted by the Hearing
Officer to the Executive Committee within 60 days.
Section 5. The Executive Committee may accept, reject, or modify the
recommendations of the Hearing Officer. The vote must be a two-thirds majority
of the committee.
Section 6. Any member of the Executive Committee removed from office as a
result of these proceedings, or a member removed under the provisions of Article
III, Section 2; may appeal to the full membership. Such an appeal must be made
within sixty (60) days of the Executive Committee’s decision. The appeal must be
made in writing to the Secretary – Treasurer with copies to the members of the
Executive Committee.
Section 7. The Secretary – Treasurer shall forward the Appeal to the Hearing
Officer who will establish procedures to allow for the full membership to vote on
the Appeal. The NBRC Bulletin will print the Appeal in the next bulletin.
Section 8. In an appeal to the membership, the appellant may have written
statements in his behalf by a member(s) in good standing presented to the
Secretary – Treasurer, and they too, will be printed with the Appeal in the next
Bulletin.
Section 9. The President, the Appellant, and a third party mutually agreed upon
will open and count the ballots. A majority vote of those ballots received will be
final and not subject to appeal in any Federal or State Court.
Section 10. Any officer removed as a result of the foregoing proceedings will
surrender any and all refunds, records, equipment, and/or property belonging to
the NBRC upon request.
PROPOSED REVISION OF ARTICLE IX:
Article IX – Grievance Committee.
Section 1. Duties. The Grievance Committee is empowered to investigate
complaints and charges against NBRC members and officers, to investigate and
determine violations of NBRC Constitution and Bylaws, rules or policies; to
summon Club members to submit evidence at hearings, to designate Club
officers or members to assist in investigating allegations of violations, and to
recommend to the Executive Committee disciplinary action against Club
officers or members for violations which it has determined to have occurred.
PROPOSED REVISION OF ARTICLE IX:
Section 2. Grievance Committee Membership. The Grievance Committee shall
consist of three standing members: (1)
the NBRC Director-at-Large, who shall serve as Committee Chairman; (2) the
NBRC Vice President; and (3) the NBRC National Fly Director. The Committee
shall also include two ad hoc members selected by the Club President
from among the members of the Executive Committee. The NBRC Legal Advisor,
if any, shall serve as a non-voting ex-officio member of the Committee. Any
standing or ad hoc member of the Committee may recuse himself from
hearing any particular grievance matter (such as by reason of conflict of interest
or close personal relationship with the alleged offender). In the event a Committee
member so recuses himself, the resulting vacancy shall be filled by
the President appointing additional ad hoc members chosen from among the
members of the Executive Committee.
Ad hoc members of the Grievance Committee may serve for a period of months
or may be appointed to serve on the Committee with respect to a specific
grievance complaint.
Section 3. Grievance Complaints. Any Club member in good standing may file a
grievance complaint alleging a violation by a member or officer. The complaint
must cite the Bylaw, rule, or policy provision alleged to have been violated. Any
such complaint shall be addressed to the NBRC Secretary-Treasurer, who shall
provide copies of the complaint to the President and to the Chairman of the
Grievance Committee.
Section 4. Hearing of Allegations. Within 20 days of receipt of the grievance
complaint and in consultation with the President, the Chairman of the Grievance
Committee shall convene a hearing to investigate and consider evidence of
the complaint. The hearing may be conducted in person, by telephone, or by
email or other remote, Internet-available means by which the Committee members
can consider, investigate, and deliberate the allegations. The hearing may
be recessed and reconvened from time to time by majority vote of the Committee.
Section 5. Willful Violation. All conclusions and recommendations of the
Grievance Committee shall require a majority vote of the Committee members.
Before the Grievance Committee can recommend disciplinary action beyond a
private warning, it must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the NBRC
member engaged in willfully offensive behavior contrary to the provisions of
Article III, Section 2 of these Bylaws, or that the NBRC officer willfully violated or
ignored an NBRC Bylaw, rule, or policy.
Section 6. Report to Executive Committee. A full report of the investigation and
hearing, together with any recommendation of disciplinary action, shall be
submitted by the Committee Chairman to the President within 60 days
from the date the grievance complaint is filed with the Secretary-Treasurer.
Extensions of time may be granted by the President for good reason in his
personal discretion. The Grievance Committee may recommend no action or a
range of disciplinary action, such as: privately-issued warning, publicly-issued
warning, suspension from participation in fly competitions, temporary or
permanent suspension of Club membership, or recommendation to refer the
matter for a criminal complaint to a relevant court of law.
Section 7. Executive Committee Action. Within ten days of receipt of the
Grievance Committee report, the President shall provide the full report or, in his
discretion, a summary thereof, to the Executive Committee to solicit comments
and a vote for imposition of appropriate sanctions or disciplinary action against
the Club officer or member subject of the grievance complaint. The Executive
Committee may accept, reject, or modify the recommendations of the
Grievance Committee. The vote must be a two-thirds majority of a quorum of the
Executive Committee. The Secretary-Treasurer shall notify the offending officer or
member by certified mail, return receipt requested, within five days of the
Executive Committee’s decision.
Section 8. Appeals.
A. Any member of the Executive Committee removed from office as a result of
these proceedings, or any member permanently expelled from Club membership,
may appeal to the full membership of the Club. Any appeal must be made within
sixty (60) days of the Executive Committee’s decision.
B. The appeal must be made in writing to the Secretary-Treasurer and the
President, who shall be responsible to provide copies to the members of the
Executive Committee. The Secretary-Treasurer shall forward the Appeal to the
Grievance Committee Chairman, who shall establish procedures to allow for the
full membership to vote on the Appeal.
C. The NBRC Bulletin will print the appeal in the next available Club bulletin,
together with instructions for NBRC members to mail their voting ballots to the
mailing address of a certified public accountant (CPA) retained by the Club
Secretary-Treasurer. The appellant may have written statements in his behalf by a
member(s) in good standing presented to the Secretary-Treasurer, and they too,
will be printed with the appeal in the Bulletin.
D. The receipt and counting of ballots on any appeal to the membership will be
conducted by the CPA retained by the Club Secretary-Treasurer for the purpose
of independently receiving by mail the voting ballots of the members and
counting the resulting votes in a manner preserving the anonymity of the
members’ votes. A Club member will be appointed to observe the vote counting
at the office of the CPA. The appellant may also be present to witness the vote
counting by the CPA. The CPA will provide to the Club President a complete
written report of the voting results.
The accountant’s report shall be published in the next available Club bulletin.
E. A majority of those member votes received will be final and not subject to
appeal in any federal or state court.
F. Any officer removed as a result of the foregoing proceedings will surrender any
and all funds, records, equipment, and/or property belonging to the NBRC.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 21-0. 17 Members did
not vote. Date: 10-01-15
HALL OF FAME BYLAW AMENDMENT
NBRC Item 2015-018
Former NBRC Public Relations Director Tou Yang submitted the following
proposal for EC consideration.
Proposal to Amend the Current Hall of Fame Voting By-Laws of the National
Birmingham Roller Club
Policy Title: Hall of Fame Program Policy Number: NBRC 004.05
I, Touhoua Yang, am a current NBRC member in good-standing and I would like to
submit a proposal about the following policy, and in particular, the election
process: Before I continue, I want to present a little bit of my information on my
background and why I feel a change to the NBRC Hall of Fame and its current
selection process is not only necessary but also for the betterment of the Club
and Hall of Fame Program.
I have been a member of the NBRC since the spring of 2010. I was part of the
hosting club for the 2012 NBRC National Convention and was the Chairman for
our local club. In 2013, I ran for the office of VicePresident and lost a close race to
our current Vice-President, Nick Siders. In the spring of 2013, Guil Rand
finished his term as the Publicity Director for the NBRC and stepped down;
without anyone filling his role, I was asked by President Cliff Ball to fill the
vacancy, which I did and continued to serve in that role until the end of December
2014 when I respectfully resigned to be able to fulfill my role as a new father.
Over the course of the past 5 plus years, I have had the pleasure of taking to all
but 6, as of 2014, of the living Hall of Fame members. I thoroughly enjoyed each
and every conversation but each time the conversation segued into the Hall of
Fame election process, I found that more than half of the current Hall of Fame
members do/did not keep in touch with the hobby. Many selectively read the
NBRC bulletins looking through pictures and just reading articles about fellow
hobbyists they knew when they were still in the hobby and an active member of
the NBRC. Many admitted they do not keep up with the club and are not aware of
who is doing what, who is volunteering their time, nor pay attention to who the
RDs are.
Throughout these numerous conversations, I found that most of our Hall of Fame
members rely solely on the letter of recommendation as most just tend to keep to
themselves or those in their respective geographical area. Because of all this, I
came to the realization that our Club may be doing a great disservice to potential
Hall of Fame candidates as many vote solely on who they know, knew, or the
letter of recommendation and thus I propose the following changes to Policy
004.05 …
Current: 004.05
The election process will be conducted as follows: Each living member of the
HOF will be allowed to vote for (3) three nominees they deem worthy of the HOF.
Should a member of the HOF find fewer than (3) worthy nominees, they may
choose to cast less than (3) three votes or abstain altogether from the voting
process. To be elected to the HOF, a nominee must receive votes in favor of
election from at least 66% of those living HOF members returning ballots. Any
member of the HOF abstaining from the process for any reason will not be figured
into the equation. In other words, if there are 17 living members and only 15
return ballots then 15 is the working number. In the event that no nominee is
elected to the HOF on the first ballot, a second ballot shall be prepared with the
names of the nominees getting votes from at least 50% of the voting HOF
members. Should a second ballot be necessary each living member may cast (1)
vote for a worthy nominee or abstain from voting.
To be amended to read:
004.05 The election process will be conducted as follows: Each living member of
the HOF and each member of the Executive Committee will be allowed to vote for
(3) three nominees they deem worthy of the HOF. Should a member of the HOF
and/or EC find fewer than (3) worthy nominees, they may choose to cast less than
(3) three votes or abstain altogether from the voting process. Each living member
of the HOF’s vote shall count as 5 votes while each member of the EC will count
as one. In other words, if a HOF member votes for Joe Lee, John Lee, and Jamie
Lee, those individual candidates will receive a total of 5 votes each. If a member
of the EC votes for the same three people, that counts as just one additional vote
added to each candidate, bringing the total to 6 votes for those candidates. To be
elected to the HOF, a nominee must receive votes in favor of election from at least
66% of those living HOF and EC members returning ballots. Any member of the
HOF and EC abstaining from the process for any reason will not be figured into
the equation. In other words, if there are 17 living HOF members and 36 EC
members and only 15 of the HOF members return ballots and only 30 EC
Members return ballots then 45 is the working number. In the event that no
nominee is elected to the HOF on the first ballot, a second ballot shall be
prepared with the names of the nominees getting votes from at least 50% of the
voting HOF and EC members. Should a second ballot be necessary each living
member of the HOF and each member of the EC may cast (1) vote for a worthy
nominee or abstain from voting.
I will explain a little about the substantial change in the middle section of 004.06; I
feel that it is an honor to be voted into the HOF by a voter of your potential peers
but also feel that a change is necessary. To preserve the legitimacy and integrity
as well as the honor of being a HOF member, it is only right that each living HOF
member’s vote should hold a bit more weight than the members of the EC. This
proposal still allows our current HOF members a substantial say in who joins
them but also allows current, active NBRC EC members to also have a say as
they are the ones who are keeping the hobby and club alive.
I hope that this proposal will be looked at carefully and be submitted before the
NBRC EC for a discussion and possible vote. Respectfully, Touhoua Yang —
NBRC Member, Region 4A
Proponents favoring procedural changes pointed out that “it makes sense to
have men who have their finger on the pulse of the hobby have a say in the
induction into the NBRC Hall of Fame”, based on Tou’s verbiage that HOF
admission may be unduly controlled by HOF members who are semi-retired from
the roller community and aren’t up-to-date on club involvement and participation.
In rebuttal, the majority of EC members felt the system isn’t broken and adding
outside voters would fail to make any significant difference. It was revealed that
an average of 17 of the 24 living members have voted each year of the last two
years. Of the 7 non-voters, one did not vote because he didn’t feel any of the
nominees deserved election, and another voter had relocated with his current
mailing address unknown.
The majority believed that the letter of nomination is sufficient to bring the Hall of
Fame members up to date on the nominee’s exploits in the hobby, and that it
would add to the administration burden of the process for electing members that
was deemed unnecessary. They felt it should remain solely the responsibility of
the nominator to communicate the reasons why the candidate deserves to be
elected with the Hall of Fame members in agreement. Furthermore, with the
limited participation on the EC and the constant RD turnover, they believed that
the RD’s as a whole will not be any more in tune with the respective candidate’s
qualification than the Hall of Famers would be. As a group those against the
proposal also weren’t sure that a combined EC / HOF vote would be any better
representation or not; that the nominee who best presents their candidate in
writing will most likely have the best opportunity for their recommendation to
gain approval.
Vote Result: The item failed to pass the committee by a vote of 4-18. 16 Members
did not vote. Date: 09-15-15
FALSIFICATION OF NBRC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP FLY REPORT
NBRC Item 2015-020
NBRC President Cliff Ball and National Fly Director Don Macauley were contacted
by several members reporting that Paul Tillery, the Regional Director of Region
9H, falsified their regional fly reports in order to qualify himself for the Finals. The
NBRC Grievance Committee (Don Macauley, Nick Siders, Walt Rosehill,
and John Kelley) investigated the incident and recommended the following
action: Following is the Grievance Committee’s recommendation with regard to
the falsified fly report submitted by Paul Tillery, which he ultimately admitted to
via an email to the Fly Director:
The Committee feels that the email admission was more in reaction to “the cat
being out of the bag” ratherthan a total self-reporting of his cheating. In his email,
Paul reported that he had falsified 5 members, who did not fly, with a 0 result in
order to get a 4th qualifier, who was Paul himself. The Fly Director contacted the
Regional Judge, Geronimo Flores, and reviewed the fly results. Geronimo
identified 2 additional members listed as 0’s that “Did Not Fly”. Thus, a total of 7
members were falsified on the fly report as 0’s instead of DNF’s. The committee
recommends that the following action be taken:
- Paul Tillery is to be suspended for 3 years. After 3 years, he can request
reinstatement as a member, which will require majority approval vote of 2/3 of the
EC. - A condition of Paul’s reinstatement is a lifetime ban on serving as an Officer or
RD. - Regarding the region results, due to cheating Paul is disqualified from the fly
and his fly results are removed. The 3rd qualifier loses that qualifying spot due to
not enough kits being flown. Note: By stripping Paul of his fly results that has no
impact on the 3rd qualifier losing his spot. There were not enough kits flown
already, once the falsified 0’s were removed.
The Executive Committee discussed the committee’s recommendation, with
Master Flyer points brought to the table. It was favored that in the absence of
evidence (or even allegations) that Paul cheated in past fly competitions, he
would retain his past Master Flier points, forfeiting only those from the
competition in which he cheated. Because the World Cup Fly is a separate entity,
he can enter that competition arena, but any finishes meriting Master Flyer points
will be discarded and he will be ineligible to receive credit for hose points for the
duration of his non-membership status.
The Executive Committee voted on the following revision: - Paul Tillery is to be suspended from NBRC membership for 3 years. After 3
years he can request reinstatement as a member, which will require a majority
approval by 2/3 of the EC. This vote may require phone or email polling by the
NBRC President. - A second condition of Paul’s reinstatement is a lifetime ban on serving as
either an Officer or Regional Director in the NBRC. - Regarding the regional results, Paul is hereby disqualified from the competition
and his results are to be removed. As a result, the 3rd qualifier loses his
qualifying spot due to the fact that not enough kits were legitimately flown to earn
the third qualifier. His score will also be deleted, along with any Master Flier
points that were logged as a result of the infraction. Note: In actuality, stripping
Paul of his fly results, in itself, has no impact on the 3rd qualifier losing his spot.
The facts are that there were not enough kits entered for a third qualifier, once the
falsified 0’s were removed. - During the period of suspended membership, Paul may not compete in the
NCF, and he will not accumulate Master Flier points for any success in flying in
the World Cup.
The quorum was met and the proposal to accept the revised Grievance
Committee’s recommendations passed the committee by a vote of 21-0. NBRC
President Cliff Ball informed the EC that he would draft a letter advising Paul of
his penalty and send it to him by certified mail.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 21-0. 17
Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 11-18-15
Falsification of fly Record Region 3A-NBRC 2015-21
The Grievance Committee recommends the following:
- Troy is to be suspended from the NBRC for 2 years. The committee notes that
the cheating that occurred was done for the benefit of the region rather than for
personal gain as in the case of Paul Tillery in Region 9H, and feel that a 2-year
suspension would be more appropriate. After 2 years he can request
reinstatement as a member, which will require majority approval vote of 2/3 of the
EC. - A condition of Troy’s reinstatement is a lifetime ban on serving as an Officer or
RD. - Regarding the regional results, due to the false report that was filed,Larry
Philips is disqualified from the fly and his regional fly results are removed. The
3rd qualifier loses that qualifying spot due to not enough kits being flown. The
results of Larry’s participation in the 2015 NBRC finals will also be removed since
he was actually ineligible to participate in the finals. - During the period of suspended membership, Troy may not compete in the
NCF, and he will not accumulate Master Flier points for any successes in flying in
the World Cup.
EC vote: 21-0 approval with 17 not voting. 11-18-2015