Executive Committee Actions

NBRC Item 2010-01
International Membership

The Executive Committee openly discussed and gave consideration to the following policy, as written and presented:

“We welcome anyone that resides outside of the USA to join the NBRC under an International Membership. International Members will not be grouped into Regions because they are not allowed to fly in the NBRC National Championship Fly, and therefore they will not be represented by Regional Directors. International Membership dues will be set by the Executive Committee, as per the NBRC by-laws.”

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 26-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: January 29, 2010


NBRC Item 2010-04
Executive Committee Interaction on Membership Forum

The Executive Committee openly discussed and gave consideration to the following policy, as written and presented by President Joe Dan Parson:

“I want to change the Membership Forum to allow EC members the ability to interact with the general membership. I feel it is necessary to open the communication for EC members so that we can interact with the members we represent. To accomplish this, I propose that we completely strike the second paragraph from the current Forum procedures: ‘Executive Committee members will be allowed to monitor the list but cannot post commentary. From review of general membership discussion, the EC can gain a sense of how non-voting members regard a certain issue.’”

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 23-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: March 30, 2010


NBRC Item 2010-05
Disclosure and Publication of Voting Record

The Executive Committee openly discussed and gave consideration to disclosing the voting record of its members, as written and presented by President Joe Dan Parson:

“In the spirit of increased transparency, a proposal has been made to publish the actual voting records of all business conducted by the EC. The records will indicate the actual proposal, the name of the EC member, their region or office held, and their yes or no vote. If an EC member did not vote, that would be recorded also. All records will be published in the next upcoming NBRC Bulletin after the voting period for all proposals has ended.”

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 24-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: April 6, 2010


NBRC Item 2012-001
Adding the NBRC Forum Director to the Executive Committee as a Non-Voting Consultant

The NBRC Forum Director, via the Internet, presents EC business to the general membership for the purpose of soliciting comments and input that may be used for vote consideration. To enable the Forum Director to have real time access to EC discussion, which in turn would allow more effective and timely communication with non-committee members, it was proposed that the director be added to the EC in a non-voting, consulting capacity. This move would streamline the process by eliminating the need of constantly forwarding information via email chains as discussions transpire.

Opponents of the measure regarded direct access to be a much more effective way of communication and favored the addition of the Forum Director in a consultation role.

Proponents of the measure were appreciative of the Forum Director’s role and efforts, but felt access to EC business should be limited to committee members only.

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-2 vote.
Acceptance Date: April 15, 2012


NBRC Item 2012-002
Adding the former NBRC Secretary-Treasurer to the Executive Committee as a Non-Voting Consultant

In recognition of the extensive knowledge of club affairs accumulated by former Secretary-Treasurer Bob Berggren during his long tenure of service, the benefit of tapping this resource was realized. Not intended to become a long term or permanent position, Berggren’s input and knowledge were considered as beneficial to the group in discussion on ways to stabilize and enhance the club’s financial situation in controlling membership cost and more effective use of funds for the betterment of the membership. This move would streamline the process by eliminating the need of constantly forwarding information via email chains as discussions transpire.

Opponents of the measure regarded direct access to be a much more effective way of communication and favored the addition of the former Secretary-Treasurer in a consultation role.

Proponents of the measure were appreciative of the former Secretary-Treasurer’s role and efforts, but felt access to EC business should be limited to committee members only.

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 19-2 vote.
Acceptance Date: April 15, 2012


NBRC Item 2011-03
Consulting Agreement and Stipend for NBRC Website Director

As compensation for services provided to the club in maintaining the NBRC website, a proposal was submitted to award a stipend to the Website Director, based upon compliance with a “consulting agreement” defining the general responsibilities of the position. The proposed stipend would not affect the club treasury by resulting in additional money being paid out for administrative services; instead becoming payment already allocated in that that half of the current stipend being paid to the Secretary/Treasurer and would be re-directed to the webmaster for the consulting and web services provided to the organization. The Website Director has been a workhorse for the NBRC and recent development to the website has significantly reduced the Secretary’s workload, with many enhancements that have improved service and efficiency.

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

This consulting agreement (this agreement) is made and entered into as of the 1st day of July, 2011, by and among The National Birmingham Roller Club, Inc., a Utah Non Profit Corporation, and Gonzalo Banuelos for Web Master Services.

The Website known as NBRCOnline.com, NBRCOnline.org, and NBRCOnline.net are the sole property of the National Birmingham Roller Club, Inc. All access codes and keys will be provided to the President and Secretary-Treasurer for the above mentioned sites. All internet fees for maintaining these sites will be paid by the NBRC, as well as a $2.55 yearly fee per active member; this is a stipend to be paid ¼ of $2.55, paid quarterly for every active member. The Web Master will be directly responsible to the NBRC Secretary-Treasurer and the NBRC President for any and all decisions concerning management of the above mentioned sites.

Below is a description of the Web Masters duties as listed by Mr. Banuelos;

The job requirements of a typical web master are limited to performing system upgrades, updating website content, maintaining a working deployment of applications, be it web application or auxiliary applications, and making sure domain names, SSL encryption certificates, email forwarding and services, and any other certificates are up to date. This is one part of the job I will continue to do, as I always have.

My position, however, will be a hybrid. The role of “Web Master” is typically very narrow. Web masters do not seek or create content, they merely post it, or enable others to post it. They don’t actively solicit auction items and spend very limited time with customers, face to face. I will make sure, as part of my duties, that I create portals for other people to contribute in this endeavor. Secure portals will be created, as in the case of the Master Flyer system, for other trusted members to post scores, add auction items, and answer customer emails.

In addition to these tasks, my role will also be to augment the site with new features, by custom building web components and auxiliary applications that will allow users to maintain their own memberships, allow forums per region, for the entire club, and any other configuration we seek, provide “nbrconline.com” email addresses, and to be notified by email of NBRC happenings. The EC will be able to communicate in a secure environment as opposed to simply email. I will also create a portal for users to vote in a secure and anonymous manner. I will explore options for disseminating the NBRC bulletin as an e-book through a secure portal. That is, we will create an alternative “light” membership where users don’t get physical bulletins, but can nonetheless read the monthlies online.

Lastly, I plan to replace the current auction system with an embedded view of PigeonsBid.com. This view will be NBRC branded and will run for two periods a year. There will be a Convention Online auction, as always, which will run for 3 months, and also a post convention auction to get rid of excess convention items (shirts, hats, etc.). I will disable all other private auctions on PigeonsBid.com for the period of one month leading into the national convention, so all advertising and traffic will be driven to the NBRC fundraiser. The NBRC can take advantage of the traffic I will be driving to it from other sites, like the RollerWorld, PigeonDB, RollerDB and AllBreedDB and Google AdWords. I will not charge commission on the items sold, except for the cost of hosting and card processing fees and PayPal fees.

All EC members will have access as moderators to the new website. The president and special directors, where applicable, will have administrator access.

All of this work is to be performed within the budget the NBRC already spends on the website. No additional expenses are anticipated.

The goal is to eventually have a system that will allow for one person to be in charge of posting scores, one person in charge of answering emails and addressing membership issues, one person to seek and post auction items, and one or more persons to act as moderators for the embedded forums and blogs. This leaves me with the responsibility of building and maintaining all of these systems. I will write code and make sure the system operates at all times.

In Witness of this agreement, and by agreement of a vote of the NBRC Executive Committee;

National Birmingham Roller Club, Inc.
President, Joe Dan Parson
Web Master, Gonzalo Banuelos

Opponents of the measure expressed concern and hesitation of supporting the proposal because explicit language that addressed specific terms for separation for each party were not incorporated in the agreement. Other members expressed desire to seek new stewardship of the website, communicating irreconcilable differences in that conflicting ideas or beliefs between the current director and themselves cannot be brought into harmony.

Proponents were convinced that the proposal was well intended and justifiable, realizing that the efforts of the Website Director have dramatically reduced the Secretary-Treasurer’s workload, particularly with membership record and auction maintenance (it was stipulated that over half of monetary income is generated by the website). In recognizing that minimum charges for web services obtained from an outside contractor would range from $80-$300 hourly, the compensation award was deemed to be a bargain and well-deserved. In supporting payment for delivered web services through a stipend, the proponents for the most part saw no issues with the agreement.

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 16-13 vote.
Acceptance Date: August 10, 2011

____________________________________________________________________

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” rather
than 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:
1. 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.
2. A condition of Paul’s reinstatement is a lifetime ban on serving as an Officer or RD.
3. 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
those points for the duration of his non-membership status.
The Executive Committee voted on the following revision:
1. 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.
2. A second condition of Paul’s reinstatement is a lifetime ban on serving as either an Officer or
Regional Director in the NBRC.
3. 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 qualifer, once the falsified 0’s were removed.
4. 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

___________________________________________________________________________

NEW MEMBER ASSIGNMENT DUTIES
NBRC Item 2016-001
Acting President Jon Farr submitted as a proposal to the Executive Committee that the NBRC “re-institute a formal
new member welcome program.” This would entail personal contact from an appointed officer in the form of an
introductory package containing items such as a welcome letter, a current bulletin, and a small gift (i.e. magnet,
sticker, pen or similar item). It would also dictate that new members receive contact from their regional director. The
intent behind the practice would be making new members feel personally welcomed and appreciated.
This measure is not a new concept and was past club practice, but during officer transition it was set aside and not
maintained. A discussion period was opened for comments, questions, suggestions and volunteerism, with every
participant very supportive in their input and advice during the discussion phase. The three main concerns during the
discussion were 1) financing the measure 2) determination of new versus returning members and 3) oversight or
administration of it. It was deemed that the program could be re-instituted without any significant financial impact.
The existing latter language in Section 6 already enabled the PR Director to utilize others to accomplish the task. The
duty as current already allowed for this program, with the amendment just more specifically focusing the attentions of
the PR Director. As far as cost, it was deemed a reasonable investment in promoting a positive attitude for the future.
Farr then re-submitted the proposal as an amendment to the bylaw Article V – Duties of Officers, Section 6, which
currently read in part:

Article V, Section 6
Section 6. The Public Relations Director is elected by the general membership for a term of four years. He is
endowed with the responsibility of maintaining the positive image of the club. He is, in many ways, a spokesman of
the NBRC, communicating its policies and activities to people inside and outside the organization, representing the
club to existing members, potential members, the public, the government, the media, and other external sources. To
be most effective, he must observe and respond to social, economic, and political trends that might impact
membership, establishing long-range objectives and specifying the strategies and actions to achieve them. The
Director of Public Relations will work to identify primary groups and audiences from which new members
may be derived; determine the best way to communicate information to them, and then develop and
implement a plan to reach out to them. He will develop and maintain advertising and promotional programs that are
compatible with the target audience, maintaining the NBRC image and identity. In order to assist him in these
activities, the Public Relations Director may recruit, appoint, assign, supervise, and review the activities of an
appropriate number of committee members as he deems necessary to accomplish these objectives.

The proposed revision would amend the underlined sentence.

Article V, Section 6
Proposed Revision

Section 6. The Public Relations Director is elected by the general membership for a term of four years. He is
endowed with the responsibility of maintaining the positive image of the club. He is, in many ways, a spokesman of
the NBRC, communicating its policies and activities to people inside and outside the organization, representing the
club to existing members, potential members, the public, the government, the media, and other external sources. To
be most effective, he must observe and respond to social, economic, and political trends that might impact
membership, establishing long-range objectives and specifying the strategies and actions to achieve them. The
Director of Public Relations will work to identify primary audiences from which new members may be
derived; oversee the administration of a new member welcome package, which may include but is not limited
to a welcome letter, a notice to the new member’s Regional Director, a current bulletin, and a NBRC token. He
will develop and maintain advertising and promotional programs that are compatible with the target audience,
maintaining the NBRC image and identity. In order to assist him in these activities, the Public Relations Director may

recruit, appoint, assign, supervise, and review the activities of an appropriate number of committee members as he
deems necessary to accomplish these objectives.

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 20-0 vote. 17 Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 05-12-16

______________________________________________________________________

NBRC PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR APPOINTMENT
NBRC Item 2017-003
President Jon Farr sought committee approval to support his appointment of Cam Datanagan as the NBRC
Public Relations Director, filling a vacancy prompted by the resignation of David Curneal from office in May
2017. NBRC bylaws mandate that any appointment to fill an elected national office is subject to undergo
Executive Committee acceptance.
The position of Public Relations Director is a four-year, elected office term. Curneal was elected in 2015 to
begin service in 2016 and continue through the end of 2019, with the unused balance of that term being
two-and-a-half years in length. If approved, Datanagan would complete the 30-month allotment and after
the stint become eligible for succession of office as a 2019 candidate.
Bylaws pertinent to this appointment / approval process include:
Article IV — Officers
Section 1. Elected National Offices, Four-Year Terms.
National officers elected to serve four-year terms: Secretary-Treasurer, Publishing Editor, and Public
Relations Director.
Section 2. Elected Officers to Serve on Executive Committee
All national and regional officers and directors serving in elected offices provided in Section 1 shall
likewise serve on the Executive Committee, with full voting privileges. Officers serving in elected
offices shall be considered to have been elected even if they took office initially by appointment of the
President in order to fill a vacancy in that office.
Section 7. Filling Vacancies
Vacancies in national offices and regional directorships may be filled as follows:
a) Should any vacancy occur in any elected national office for any reason, the President, with approval
of the Executive Committee, may appoint a member to fill such vacancy for the unexpired term of office.
c) Serving in a national or regional office solely to complete the unexpired term of the previous office
holder shall not constitute a “term of office” for purposes of serving successive or consecutive terms
under these Bylaws.
Datanagan has long exemplified enthusiasm for the hobby and the consensus among his peers is that he
would prove himself to be a tremendous asset to the NBRC. Among his qualifications, Cam has hosted the
NBRC Facebook page and served in various positions for the National Pigeon Association, organizing and
promoting national events through them.
Support for Datanagan was unanimous among the 16 committee members who responded, with all casting
a favorable vote for his installment.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 16-0. 21 Members did not vote.

Acceptance: 7-10-17

______________________________________________________________________

Certified Spinner Program
The purpose of the NBRC Certified Spinner Program is the recognition of superior Birmingham Roller
performance. The goal is continued improvement of the Birmingham Roller as a performing breed.
NBRC members who wish to certify a bird will do so by submitting an official NBRC Spinner Certification
Application Form with all the required information.
The form will be submitted to the NBRC Certified Spinner Director for examination and approval.
Certification Fly Rules
1. Certification of a bird will be authenticated by a minimum of three qualified judges (other than the
owner of the bird) on at least two different occasions. At least two of the three certifying judges shall
be present for each session to witness the performance. A qualified judge will be an NBRC member
in good standing who has regularly flown in NBRC competitions for at least the past five (5) years
and/or who has judged NBRC or World Cup events on more than one occasion. Authentication by the
judges will be made by their signature on the certification form (judges should sign the form only
after all other information has been entered).
2. A bird being certified will be at least one year old or banded with a seamless band from a year prior to
the year of certification. The owner will be a current NBRC member in good standing. The judges will
verify the band year on the bird in question.
3. The bird being certified must be designated before liberation and must be easily and clearly
identifiable while in flight. Certification may be done in conjunction with a world, national, regional, or
local kit competition. If there is a question in a judge’s mind as to the identification of the bird or it
meeting the criteria for certification due to distance, weather, or any factor affecting the observation
of the bird in judgment, the bird should not be certified.
4. The bird must perform with outstanding speed and style sufficient to blur out the wing tips and
execute cleanly from start to finish. The bird must spin a minimum depth of thirty (30) feet or a
duration of three (3) seconds and should have enough frequency to spin once a minute. The bird
must demonstrate a strong desire to kit and return quickly after a spin, it should never turn away from
the kit or be an out bird during judgement. The bird will be judged for a minimum of fifteen (15)
minutes and must not land without the kit or until twenty (20) minutes have passed since liberation
(whichever comes first).
5. Should the judges find the bird worthy of certification the owner of such bird will complete a NBRC
Certified Spinner Certification Application Form. The form shall contain the printed name of the
owner and signature, the printed name and signature of each judge certifying the bird, a current
contact number for each judge, and any comments the judges wish to add (list competition being
judged), date/time of certification, location of certification (loft name, city, state), and names of any
other witness present during the certification (other than the owner). In addition, the form shall
include relevant information on the bird to include the band number (with year), color and markings,
sex, age, and name (if any) that might have been given to the bird in question by the owner.
6. Forms should be legible and completed in permanent blue or black ink with no “mark-throughs” or
corrections. Completed forms should be mailed to the current NBRC Certified Spinner Director for
inspection. Once certification is authenticated the bird will be recorded in the Certified Spinner
Register, the bird is not deemed certified until it is registered. A maximum of three (3) birds may be
certified per year per owner.
7. Any attempts by a member with the intent to falsify, forge, or counterfeit a document or form either in
whole or part shall result in disciplinary action. The disciplinary action should be consistent with the
violation committed up to and including a lifetime ban from the NBRC. Minimum disciplinary action
will include forfeiture and removal of any previous Certified Spinners from the Certified Spinner
Registry.
A judge who certifies a spinner by his signature on the form has found the candidate bird
to be a meritorious and praiseworthy example of what we all hope to achieve in the air

Commentary:
The proposed Certified Spinner Program met positive feedback from all participating EC members with no
opposition expressed during the discussion period. Comments such as “a great idea” were echoed with
remarks including “several in my area would be interested and it has the potential to attract new members”
and “it’s something that will appeal to our backyard members.”
During the open discussion, questions were asked such as “how much it will cost? If it is a free program,
then reconsider. There should be an entry fee per bird entered or one slandered fee for up to three birds
entered.” It was stated that there will not be any cost to the club other than postage to mail out certificates.
“What time of the year should this be held? This might be requiring flying three judges around, who is going
to pay for that?” It was clarified there was no timetable and that “it is not a competition. A bird can be
certified anytime of the year. A member may only certify one bird at a time, up to 3 per year maximum. The
club isn’t providing judges or flying any around. The member wishing to certify a bird must plan for at least 2
other members in good standing, who have competed regularly in the last 5 years or have judged WC or NCF
flys, to be in his yard to certify the selected bird if they deem it worthy. He must also plan another day for at
least one other different member who meets the qualifications to be a certifying judge, to be there, along with
another (a fourth member judge), or one of the first two. The bird must be judged on two separate occasions,
and be judged by at least 3 judges, at least two present each time. Nobody is going to have to pay for it. The
judges will likely be some of his region members, perhaps a regional judge and can do it during a club fly,
regional qualifier for WC or NCF, or a day he chooses just to fly a bird he wants to show and get certified.
Part of the program is to get roller guys together, to watch kits/birds perform and support each other in a fun
way as a hobby. Somewhere along the path we have lost a lot of the human element of ‘gathering’ to enjoy
roller flying. Part of our stated mission as NBRC is to promote fellowship amongst its fanciers.”
“We have to make sure we maintain the integrity of the program and not let it deteriorate like it did before to
the point where guys were certifying their friend’s birds to raise the price tag on their birds. How can we
prevent that from happening?”
Farr’s answer to “how do we protect the integrity” of the program was that “we keep it positive. There is
virtually no way, without sending men on police detail to supervise, of guaranteeing that some wont try to
take advantage. It’s a ‘for fun’ program. There is a rule written against fraud. The honest men will be honest
and the liar will still be that, too. I realize there will be some who use it to promote themselves and/or their
birds and perhaps make better sales, etc. So what? If a guy gets a thrill off having a book full of certificates
on his birds, good for him. Is it really any skin off our neck that he does so? It already happens now (bird
sales, inflated promotions, champions on every perch) without any standard criteria. I think we have to trust
those who sign their names as judges and witnesses that the bird is in fact a superior Birmingham roller. We
can choose to live questioning everyone’s motive, believing they are conspiring somehow, or we accept that
people’s motives are their own and until proven otherwise, give them benefit of the doubt. The reason I
wanted a 3 bird per year limit is so that a few men don’t monopolize the program for selfish purposes, which
may still happen. But, they will now have to go through the prescribed processes to accomplish it.”
Designee Director Jay Yandle added “If a flyer chooses to certify a bird during a comp and the judge
agrees to it, then the flyer will suffer whatever discount on points happens because of it and it’s on him, not
the judge nor the region. There are also several judges, not just one, which brings up another point, what if
one judge says no and the others say yes? It has to be unanimous and I think that probably should be
stated. With that said, it’s important to note that the certification may mean more to the flyer than the
score.”
National Fly Director Don Macauley added that “we must make it optional whether the Judge of a region
or finals fly would be committed to certifying spinners during these flys. Some may be perfectly willing and
some may feel it is a distraction from their main purpose of judging the fly. We have had a few Judges
willing to pick out the best bird of the fly and some that preferred not to in past region flys. So to have to
focus on a certain individual bird up for consideration could be tough for a Judge to do while scoring the
overall performance of the kit.”
Their input was not added to the proposal before it was voted upon, thus deeming Yandle and Macauley’s
critique recommendations versus actual policy.

Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 20-0. 15 Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 09-21-17

_______________________________________________________________

SAME DAY FLY POILICY ITEM NUMBER 2019007

The final matter of business presented to the Executive Committee in 2019 was done so at year’s end with final vote tabulation occurring past the deadline date of the JanuaryFebruary NBRC Bulletin. President Don Macauley thanked all of the committee members who have been able to participate in this EC group and keep the discussions professional and healthy in any debate that has occurred your contributions and efforts have been appreciated. Macauley’s proposal involved the Same Day Fly Policy. A Same Day Fly policy was passed by the committee in 2014 and presented as a way to eliminate anyone from violating the policy of not flying any of the same birds twice in the same format when flying two kits. On some of the social networks there were heated discussions regarding this with an undisclosed member admitting that he flys the same birds twice and that there was nothing the NBRC could do about it. A couple of other fliers indicated they may have done the same thing, but would not openly admit it as this flier did. Revelation of this resulted in a heated debate online between the president at that time and the member in violation. The club’s intent is to always make sure that sanctioned competition is conducted with integrity and respect of the policies and rules. The policy was implemented as an attempt to eliminate cheating of this kind. There were mixed feelings about this policy among a few committee members, and while they were insistent that they would never condone cheating, they were accused of condoning cheating when voicing opposition. The belief then was that all members, due to the actions of a few, were being penalized as going to cheat if not required to fly both their kits on the same day. For example, one committee member stated that as a participant and member of a region that had always been able to fly kits on different days, which allowed them to schedule preferred fly times for all the fliers more fairly, it was felt that they were being penalized. At the same time, larger regions had minimal ability to come back around and allow their members to fly their second kits on a different day so the impact was minimal to them regarding the Same Day Fly Policy. A part of the discussion on Same Day Fly by the EC was that larger regions really dont have the same opportunity to fly a flier’s second kit on a different day so why should a smaller region be able to. The other side of that debate was that a region is competing only among themselves in their region fly so why should they be penalized with a restricted ability to schedule their fly, as long as they schedule it fairly among their participants. Another debate was why not allow the same birds to be flown twice? The World Cup allows it and the goal is to get the best kits into the finals, plus that would eliminate any chance of cheating regarding flying the same birds. Counter point on this was that the top fliers would then get to fly their best twice and the up and comers would not be able to compete with that. Thus, there were many ways to look at the situation. While some members felt the current policy needed no revision, most of the EC expressed a desire for change, citing that each regional had unique circumstances regarding scheduling. Stances included: “If a region’s members and RD are in agreement on how a regional fly is conducted concerning whether kits are flown on the same day or on successive days (or weekends) then I have no issues with one region using a different system from another. When the regional qualifiers meet up in the finals everyone has the same opportunities and how they got there has no bearing on the outcome. Each RD should have figured out what works best as far as scheduling. Those with regions that are small in area can do flys completely different then what I am able to do being a region of several states. It was entered into debate that one method of combatting a flyer from this type of unapproved behavior would be to limit a competitor to one kit entry versus two. The consensus feeling on this was that limitation should not be imposed because RDs faced enough problems as it was trying to get the minimum number of entries. Among the comments, I am not in favor of reducing the number of flys per flyer from 2 to 1. This would be a simple solution to the problem, but sometimes the easiest solution is not necessarily the best. At a time when we are seeing dwindling numbers in our club and especially our flys, I believe we need to do everything we possibly can to encourage more participation with more flexibility and ease in the process. Also, limiting the fly to only one kit per entrant will raise the cost of participation. And it would also require a complete overhaul of how we determine the number of qualifiers per region and how we determine master flyer points opening another can of worms. Overall, the majority opinion echoed this submission: I think that we should have a general set of rules for organization of the flys, but yet still allow the local regions the flexibility to conduct their fly in the best possible way for their situation. After a period of debate and discussion, Macauley wrote: Thanks for your participation. A lot of pieces to be considered regarding the fly policy. The other things brought up will most likely be included in future proposals and discussions. The discussion period has passed and we will put this to vote. The vote will be to eliminate the wording regarding Same Day Fly requirement, as well as clarify that a kit not flown is a Did Not Fly, not a DQ, regardless to the reason the kit isn’t able to be released. This proposal doesn’t mean a RD has to schedule everyone’s kits on different days. That is at the discretion of the RD. The voting period will start now. Below is the current wording applicable to this proposal the wording is in bold that is directly being considered. Below that is the revised shortened wording to be voted on as Yes or No. CURRENT 00104 PARTIAL (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 asneeded 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 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 onehour 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 comingling. 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. PROPOSED REVISION 00104 PARTIAL (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. such as 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 asneeded basis during the competition, in the event of unforeseen delays, severe weather conditions, or in the event of interference from a bird of prey. In cases of kits being flown back to back 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 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 to the point of causing the 2nd kit to be not judgable. 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 that point.

Approved 16-4 .

Acceptance: 1/3/20

_____________________________________________________________________________________

NBRC COLLABORATION WITH JERRY CHACON TO PRODUCE VIDEOS NBRC ITEM 2021002

NBRC Member Jerry Chacon submitted a proposal to start an NBRC YouTube channel containing documentaries that he has produced.  The following submission outlines the way he envisions this program working.  He requests that any revenue that is generated would be earmarked to pay the cost of future projects that he would be putting together for this YouTube channel.  Jerry submitted:

 

“I am emailing a proposal on putting together Documentaries and Interviews related to the Roller Pigeon hobby. I would like to put together an NBRC YouTube channel and make trailers of these documentaries, then set up a Patreon so we could have people purchase the Documentary for viewing and make revenue to help with the cost to make these documentary films. I believe this is the next step to elevate the hobby and spread the word for newcomers. I would like to use the revenue to help me with traveling expenses. With the NBRC YouTube channel, we can link the official NBRC website and Facebook page on the YouTube Channel banner, video descriptions, and discussion / comment sections.  We can also film events such as conventions and National Flys and upload advertisements for these events to attract more people. I am also open to work with the Administration’s ideas that will suit this project. Please look into this proposal and contact me with your thoughts about this.” – Jerry Chacon

 

To begin the discussion period, Tou Yang wrote: “For those not familiar with what “Patreon” is… Patreon was created by a musician in California as an avenue to make money and get donations from fans of their music instead of just monetizing their work through YouTube ads alone. Users, or patrons, join Patreon and pay a fee set by the content creator to view the work. So, in this case, the NBRC and/or Jerry, would set the price either monthly or per video and people who want to watch it will be charged accordingly. Of course, Patreon takes a portion of the revenue ranging from 5-12%.”

 

A healthy debate covered different scenarios that might surface from the club’s involvement, particularly monetary issues.  Conversations with Jerry indicated that all profits would go to the NBRC, but in return, the NBRC would use some of the money to fund his trips. He’s thinking between $300-$500 per documentary if the project is a popular and successful venture.  Committee Members expressed having no problem providing Jerry with funds that are generated by the profits of the YouTube channel, but stand opposed to providing funds in the anticipation that the videos will generate income.

 

Further discussion and inquiry with Jerry revealed that he is not seeking any money from the NBRC, just the endorsement. The group’s general consensus is that there’s no downside financially to be seen. Jerry’s enthusiasm is something we should allow to blossom to encourage more participation in our hobby.  Those viewing his work to date agreed that his work is absolutely professional and a step above everything else on YouTube.    While the idea of filming convention and/or fly competition were considered as great ideas, members stressed that no actual judging or commentary surrounding the judging of birds shown be filmed.   The videotaping of a kit in competition would potentially create confusion, controversy, and debate on a judge and his particular style, harming the chances of attracting that judge for a future event.  People will naturally start second guessing the judge which would be unfair action.

 

On July 7, President and Moderator John Kelly called for the commencement of voting.  He submitted the following:

  • There will be a 3-day voting period for the NBRC sponsored YouTube channel.
  • These are the two options that I am presenting for a vote, please select either A or B.
  • A.The NBRC will sponsor a YouTube channel set up by Jerry Chacon with video content for the purpose of promoting the hobby. Criteria for this channel are as follows:
  • 1.All videos that are to be uploaded onto the NBRC YouTube channel must receive prior approval by an oversight committee of three members of the Executive Council. This council shall consist of the current NBRC president and two other members appointed by the president.
  • 2.The NBRC YouTube channel will list the current president, secretary/treasurer, and Jerry Chacon as owners.
  • 3.A method of receiving payment for downloading any videos from the website will be routed through an online payment process (Patreon for example) to the NBRC treasury. Any profits that result from subscribers of the NBRC YouTube channel downloading video content can be used to finance additional videos that can uploaded to the channel. The content and subject of future videos that are considered for use on the NBRC YouTube channel will have to be approved by the above-mentioned committee. Content that shall not be approved, but not limited to, are as follows:
    1. Any NBRC competition when a kit is being judged.
    2. Videos that contain profanity, discussion of harming birds of prey, political in any nature, lewdness, and any other content that is deemed inappropriate by the committee.
    3. Any DVDs that are made from the videos will made available for sale on the NBRC store.
    4. There shall be no expense incurred by the NBRC that exceeds the income received through the downloading of videos from the YouTube channel.
    5. Any changes or additions to the NBRC YouTube channel that are required in the future will be subject to approval by the three-member oversight committee.

 Acceptance: 7/11/2021

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

ELECTRONIC ONLINE VOTING – NBRC ELECTIONS NBRC ITEM 2021-003

President John Kelly addressed the EC with a proposal to add an electronic vote option that could be used in the 2021 Election and beyond.  Kelly wrote: “We are in an election year for the NBRC with the standard paper ballots posted in the July-August bulletin. Historically, the number of votes cast in past elections has been dismal. Last year I approached our webmaster, Mark Fields, about the possibility of setting up an online voting procedure through the NBRC website. Mark, as he always did, came through with a process that allowed votes to be cast on any topic by any paid member of the NBRC. This has remained virtually unused until a couple of weeks ago when Danny Sturgeon created the question using this online feature asking about the interest in the YouTube channel by the general membership. This generated more votes than any of the recent elections the NBRC held, with somewhere over 60 votes cast on the topic.  I want to allow this process to be used for the upcoming election. Our bylaws as currently written don’t allow for this. The EC has the authority to amend the bylaws to allow this to happen and any changes to the bylaws began on the date that the vote is taken by the EC.  Electronic voting will be an option and will not eliminate the current voting process, which requires the ballot that is printed in the bulletin to be torn out and mailed to the chairman of the vote tabulation committee. This proposal would be a second method of gathering votes. One of the safeguards against people voting more than once would be to compare the mail in ballots with the online voting list and eliminate any duplicates.  After the discussion period the final proposal will be written which would incorporate any other measures, we as a group would want included. Of course, the option to stay with how the voting is currently done will be a choice as well.”

The proposed option met favorable response simply because very few members return a paper ballot in this new “electronic age” that has led to decreased participation.   With a significant decrease in the number of candidates, fewer members bother to remove and return the “outdated” paper ballot.  Executive Committee members believed that an electronic voting option would stimulate people to vote, and expressed faith in its integrity as long as it is proven to be a fool-proof system that would prevent fraud. Members were assured that the Voting Committee would have the necessary tools for an effective “check and balance” system that ensured validity.  The paper ballot process would not change due to several members not using or having internet access and/or an email address.

Allowing electronic voting would require more work for the Committee Chairperson and Secretary-Treasurer to verify the votes, i.e. to make sure mailed in ballots aren’t duplicates to emailed ones, etc. But if we get better participation hopefully that leads to better representation and better club overall.

The downside of voting electronically is the loss of vote privacy. So everyone is aware, the electronic voting with our website will allow the person in charge of the website to have a report of how each voted recording the email they used. The report can then be sent to the committee. It was stressed that everyone understand that it will not be a secret ballot to the one having the report made and the committee. There is no way for anyone to change or alter the votes. Each ballot would record the voters’ email addresses which the committee can use if there is a question. I would suggest that if the report does not record the email address that the ballot does not count to eliminate hacking attempts. With the email address recorded for the ballots, it allows a way to check that they are a legit ballot if the ballots are ever in question.

Following the discussion period, President Kelly put the proposal up for vote:

The proposal to add online voting through the NBRC website would require an overhaul of Article VI of the NBRC Constitution and Bylaws, thus the entire section from the NBRC Bylaws was posted to offer a clearer view of the proposed voting procedures. The sections that the proposal would eliminate are in Bold and the parts that are to be added are in Italics.  Please vote “YES” for all of the changes to be applied to the Bylaws or “NO” to leave the Bylaws as they are currently written.

Article VI –Biennial Election

Section 1. General

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

The change will be as follows:

In addition to mailed in paper ballots, online voting will be allowed through the NBRC website. Only currently paid members will be allowed to vote online by logging in through the member’s only feature and selecting the appropriate Election Voting button. All online votes cast will be compared to any mail in ballots to ensure not duplicate votes are cast.

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. By written letter or email to the Chairman, members in good standing may nominate potential candidates for consideration. The Nominating Committee may also canvass the Executive Committee for nominations.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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. Additionally, online votes cast through the procedure described in Article VI-Biennial Election, Section 1. General, 2, will also be counted as valid ballots.
  10. Ballot Content. In addition to the list of candidates for office and the designated mailing address, the ballots shall advise members:
  11. Of the postmark cut-off date of October 1 for mail inballot eligibility and October 1 midnight CST for online ballots;
  12. That only ballots from the NBRC Bulletin and online votes through the NBRC website are valid (photocopied ballots are not valid); and
  13. That eligibility to vote for any Regional Director is limited to members residing within that region.
    1. 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.
    2. As of October 10, all ballots, both mail in and online votes, must be returned and in the possession of the Chairman. The list of online votes will be sent to the Chairman by the NBRC webmaster.
    3. Between October 10 and October 20, the Vote Counting Committee shall assemble to open the balloting envelopes and online voting list, to count the ballots received, and to verify the accuracy and integrity of the count, including but not limited to comparing the online votes to mail in votes in order to eliminate any duplicates.The vote counting shall proceed as follows:
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Vote Invalidation. Only original ballots removed from the NBRC Bulletin and online votes through the NBRC websiteshall 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Election by Plurality. Receiving a plurality of votes cast shall constitute election of a candidate.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.t 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.

    The proposal passed the committee by approval vote of 19-0. 

    The NBRC Constitution and Bylaws were revised accordingly.

  14. Acceptance 7/20/2021

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NBRC ITEM 2021-003
#1. Fly the 11 bird in the Spring and 20 in the Fall. #2. Fly the 20 in the Spring and 11 in the Fall.

A series of discussions presented to the EC regarding the National Fly resulted in the majority choosing to
split the NBRC Fly into 2 flys starting this year- one format in the Spring and one format in the Fall. The
next step was to vote on which format would be flown when. The end result is the 11 Bird being flown in the
Spring won out in a fairly close vote 14-10 (voting details below). Please see John Kelly’s Fly Director
memo in this issue for further details on how this proposal evolved to this vote.

Result: 11 bird fly in the spring and 20 in the fall: 14-10 for with 9 members not voting.

Acceptance : 01-02-2022

______________________________________________________________________

Allowing the same birds to be flown NBRC Item 2022-01

When flying two 11 or 20 bird kits, should the birds flown in the first 11 or 20 bird kit be allowed to be flown again in the second 11 or 20 bird kit?

From:
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
To:

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, may be composed of the same birds however, the birds must land and trap before being re-released. 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, will not be scored and the kits will be disqualified.

Results: 11-yes, 10-no

Acceptance: February 3, 2022

_______________________________________________________________________

 NBRC National Championship Fly Official 11-Bird Competition (Rule 5, Out-Birds) reads as follows:

5) Out-Birds. Scoring shall be suspended but timing shall continue if 2 or more birds are out. Although it cannot score while apart from the kit, a pigeon shall not be considered out if it is returning directly from a roll, has been separated by extreme weather, or has been chased off by a bird of prey, even if the pigeon lands or is captured.

It is time to vote on option 1 or 2 below:

  1. Scoring should continue and only judge the largest kit remaining.
    or
  2. Scoring should completely stop if more than 2 birds are out.

clarify the 11-bird out bird scoring rule. The vote total is as follows:

  1. 15 votes – Scoring should continue and only judge the largest kit remaining.
  2. 1 vote – Scoring should completely stop if more than 2 birds are out.

The wording “Scoring should continue and only judge the largest kit remaining” will be added to the NBRC National Championship Fly Official 11-Bird Competition (Rule 5, Out-Birds)

From Tom Monson, NBRC Legal Council

Dan:

I just reviewed the 11-bird fly rules as they appear on page 55 of the May-June 2021 Bulletin.

Here’s my view of the matter: It is true that, to amend the fly competition rules, the Club has to jump through multiple hoops. This procedure was thought to limit non-flyer officers and/or members messing around with the rules.

Arguably, you are not amending the 11-bird fly rules by adding this language. You are clarifying Rule 5 on Out-Birds. To accomplish this without running afoul of the rule change process, I would insert the language below at the end of Rule 5:
“(Clarification: where pigeons are chased off by a BOP with no time-out, scoring continues, judging only the largest kit remaining.)”

To emphasize that this is merely a clarification, it helps to add the language by putting it in parentheses and using the word, “Clarification.”)

I don’t see this as a rule “change” because any other interpretation is illogical under the rules. Clearly, under the rules, out birds chased out by BOP with no time-out:

(1) do not prevent the remaining birds in the kit from being judged;

(2) the birds out from the kit cannot score: and

(3) if more than one kit remains after the scattering, a judge should not be expected to train his eyes on two or more tiny kits flying in different directions. These are the rules for judging an 11-bird kit, not for judging multiple tiny kits at the same time.

If a flyer objects to this outcome, his remedy is to call time-out. The rules cannot bail everyone out from every potential problem.

It appears that the Executive Committee has voted in favor of the clarification. Executive Committee decisions require (a) a quorum, and (b) majority vote.

When competition judges and participants request guidance from the Club interpreting the Club’s existing fly rules, it’s the officers’ job to help them out. That’s what you’re doing. I don’t see this as a rule change.
Tom.

Vote failed for lack of a quorum.

Vote retaken:

  1. 21 votes – Scoring should continue and only judge the largest kit remaining.
  2. 1 vote – Scoring should completely stop if more than 2 birds are out.

Acceptance: 4/5/2022  16 members did not vote.

__________________________________________________________________

NBRC Membership for online bulletins only

NBRC membership which will allow for only an electronic copy of the NBRC Bulletin for $25 and all other benefits remaining unchanged. 
 
The $34 NBRC membership fee will remain unchanged, and members will receive a hardcopy of the NBRC Bulletin along with access to view the electronic version on-line.
 
Acceptance:4/23/2022  19 – yes, 2 -no 18 members did not vote. Quorum met
en_USEnglish