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

____________________________________________________________________

NBRC Item 2012-005
Region Division Request – Splitting Region 8B to Become Regions 8B and 8D / Effective January 1, 2013
Competition members of Region 8B, spearheaded by RD Ron Swart, requested that the committee consider dividing
the region into two separate entities. RD Swart proposed the split because geographical, climate, and predator
variation makes scheduling difficult and unfair to all of the members residing in the current region, which has created
dissention among the fliers. In his request, Swart stated that it currently takes a week to judge the area, which covers
about 2700 miles. If approved, Ron would remain as RD of one region (8B) which includes the following competition
members, among others: Rich Hayes, Abraham Avalos, Cesar Avalos, Joe Hansen, Norm Brill, Rich Farr, and Bruce
Kuhlman. If the split met committee approval and acceptance, the new region would become designated as Region
8D, including, among others, competition members Mitch Reed, Ivan Hanchett, Hennie Kersten, Raymond Rios, Dave
Stone, Keith Maxwell, Clay Palamides, Mark Williams, Gary Stevens, Mike Hoyle, Joe Gosler, Ray Lewis, and John
Perrin. Reed volunteered to become RD of the new region, pending presidential approval. RD Swart requested that
the actual split become effective January 1, 2013 to allow the region to follow up with plans already made for the 2012
competition.
The NBRC President and Vice-President reported receipt of both dissention and support from several of the affected
fliers, which were presented during the discussion phase of this proposal. The supportive members were primarily
from the existing region that will remain intact as 8B, while those disapproving the move consisting primarily of
members that would be forced to become the new Region 8D.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 23-1 vote.
Acceptance Date: June 8, 2012

_________________________________________

NBRC Item 2012-006
Revision of National Championship Fly Policy to Allow Flexibility in Conducting Regional Qualifying Activity
An amendment to revise the NBRC National Championship Fly Policy was proposed which would allow each region
more flexibility in scheduling qualifying activity. Due to several factors, many regions have held qualifying activity in
what is considered less than ideal situations due to existing time limitation. Having only the choice to compete in the
fall months of the year presented problems that affected participation and performance. This proposal would allow
each region more flexibility in scheduling qualifying events, providing there was no conflict with World Cup scheduling
and that the two events remain separate entities. The intent of this proposal was not to create a situation whereas
there would be conflict between the World Cup and National Championship Fly based on scheduling conflicts, but to
allow individual regions a more opportune time to fly and participate based on climatic and predator situations. The
Finals schedule would remain in the Fall time of year.
 The existing National Championship Fly Policy states:
Policy Title: NBRC National Championship Fly
Introduction
The NBRC shall sponsor an annual flying competition to be held in the fall of the year. This competition shall
be called the NBRC National Championship Fly. The fly will be open to all NBRC members in good standing
who reside in the Continental U.S.A. and on approval of the National Fly Director for those States outside the
Continental U.S.A. The fly will feature both a 20-bird and 11-bird format to be held concurrently. After a
Regional competition there will be a fly off to determine the winners in each contest.
 The proposed amendment to the National Championship Fly Policy would state:
Policy Title: NBRC National Championship Fly
Introduction
The NBRC shall sponsor an annual flying competition, known as the National Championship Fly (NCF) and
available to all current members. Membership must be current at the time the kit is flown in the regional flys,
as well as the time the competitor’s kit is flown in the Finals for those who qualify. The fly will consist of a
qualifying competition for each participating region, followed by a Finals competition. The Finals Fly
Schedule will be based on a Fall season format and in accordance to the Finals Judge availability. A draft of
a Preliminary Finals Schedule will be presented by the National Fly Director and to the Regional Directors via
the Executive Committee for feedback and for consideration to each region’s preferred dates. The actual
Finals Schedule will ultimately be determined by the National Fly Director in consultation with the President.
Regional qualifying flys may be held any time in the current calendar year of the fly, under the following
conditions:
1) 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.
2) In order to verify eligibility, names of all flyers and entry fees must be received by the National Fly
Director a minimum of 7 days before the region conducts its qualifying fly.
3) In order to arrange travel to the region for the Finals Judge, the regional competition should be
completed a minimum of 14 days prior to the scheduled Finals date for that region. Should a region face
challenges meeting this requirement, due to coordination of NCF and World Cup schedules within their
region, they are to notify the National Fly Director for consideration of the timeline of this requirement.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 22-1 vote.
Acceptance Date: December 30, 2012

____________________________________

Revision of Master Flyer Award Program Policy
NBRC Items 2013-001 and 2013-002
An amendment to revise the NBRC Master Flyer Award Program was put forward for consideration and discussion by
the committee as a two-part proposal. Each entity was designated as being distinct and independent with regard to
voting, and subsequently would be discussed and voted upon individually following the respective discussion periods.
The first part addressed the fact that competitors are not currently required to be a member of the NBRC in order to
accumulate Master Flyer points, as stated in the introduction and 003-01. The second part addressed the current
requirement for attaining the Lifetime Achievement Award, which requires that 50% of acceptable points must be
earned from NBRC events, as stated in 003-02.
The existing Master Flyer Award Program before discussion and voting:
Policy Title: Master Flyer Award Program
Policy Number: NBRC 003
One of the NBRC’s objectives is to continually seek ways to encourage competition while promoting the
Birmingham Roller as a performing bird. The Master Flyer Award Program was established as a means of
recognizing those skilled fliers of Birmingham Rollers, who consistently have their kits performing on a
higher level than most, and is based on a points system that gives competitors a means of distinguishing
themselves from the roller community in general. To accumulate points towards recognition as a Master
Flyer, one must compete in a regional, national, or international competition recognized by the NBRC.
003.01 A flyer, regardless of membership, shall earn a cumulative total of 750 points in order to become
certified as a Master Flyer.
003.02 Master Flyers may continue to accumulate points beyond the Master Flyer requirement. NBRC
members accumulating a total of 1500 points, with at least 750 of those points earned from NBRC events,
shall receive a Master Flyer Lifetime Achievement Award (MFLA).
NBRC ITEM 2013-001
Requirement of NBRC Membership to Accumulate Master Flyer Award Program Points
Existing Print:
One of the NBRC’s objectives is to continually seek ways to encourage competition while promoting the Birmingham
Roller as a performing bird. The Master Flyer Award Program was established as a means of recognizing those
skilled fliers of Birmingham Rollers, who consistently have their kits performing on a higher level than most, and is
based on a points system that gives competitors a means of distinguishing themselves from the roller community in
general. To accumulate points towards recognition as a Master Flyer, one must compete in a regional,
national, or international competition recognized by the NBRC.
003.01 A flyer, regardless of membership, shall earn a cumulative total of 750 points in order to become
certified as a Master Flyer.
Proposal context as presented to the committee :
“NBRC members having reached the status of Master Flyer will be presented a plaque in recognition of his or her
achievement. Prior to 2002, points were awarded for placement on various levels of competition, but are now
restricted to placement in NBRC Flys and World Cup competition; points accumulated shall be based on the points
system in use at the time of such competition. Results of all NBRC Fly and World Cup competition events dating back

to their inception are inclusive in the standings. Master Flyer points previously recorded from state flys, local club
contests, and special event competitions, earned prior to 2002 are inclusive in the standings, however no more shall
be added.”
The proposal is to change the Introduction to add the requirement for membership in the NBRC in order for the NBRC
to track one’s Master Flyer points, and reads: To accumulate points towards recognition as a Master Flyer, one
must compete in a regional, national, or international competition recognized by the NBRC, and must be a
current NBRC member at the time the competition is flown in order to earn the appropriate points.
In addition, the wording in the first sentence of 003.01 would need to eliminate the phrase “regardless of membership”
and would read as follows:
003-01 A flyer shall earn a cumulative total of 750 points in order to become certified as a Master Flyer.
Reason for proposed change: The NBRC solely administrates the NBRC Master Flyer Program, with the Vice President assigned that responsibility. With the continued growth we have seen in the World Cup and NBRC
competitions, an ever-increasing amount of time and effort is required in calculating and inputting points, correcting
entries, etc., much of that for non-members. That time and effort would be more appropriately put forward for the
benefit of our paid membership. In order for someone to benefit from and be recognized by this NBRC program, they
should be a paid member of the NBRC so that both the NBRC and the member benefit from this program.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

NBRC ITEM 2013-002
Eliminating Requirement that 750 MFA Program Points Must be Earned in NBRC Events
Existing Print:
003.02 Master Flyers may continue to accumulate points beyond the Master Flyer requirement. NBRC members
accumulating a total of 1500 points, with at least 750 of those points earned from NBRC events, shall receive a
Master Flyer Lifetime Achievement Award (MFLA). Recipients of the MFLA shall be presented a plaque in recognition
of their accomplishment and shall be granted a lifetime membership to the NBRC.
Proposal context as presented to the committee :
“The proposal is to eliminate the requirement that 750 points or 50% must be earned in NBRC events. The only
NBRC event is the National Championship Fly. With the ever-increasing challenges presented by Mother Nature,
etc. affecting all of us, some individuals, in addition to the competitors in other countries, are able to compete in either
the World Cup or the NBRC Fly, but not both. To achieve a total of 1500 pts as an NBRC member in either of these
competitions, or any combination of these competitions, is an impressive achievement, and should be rewarded as
such. That achievement would not be compromised in any way by eliminating the requirement that 750 of those points
be earned from NBRC events.”

Rejection Date: 02-04-13


 

Review Committee Overseeing NBRC Awards System
NBRC Item 2013-003
NBRC Item 2013-003
Review Committee Overseeing NBRC Master Flyer Award System to Ensure Process Integrity
To prevent erroneous presentation of Master Flyer and Lifetime Achievement awards, President Don Macauley
proposed the formation of a committee whose purpose would be to review pertinent records as a “check and balance”
system; in effect overseeing the process to ensure legitimacy and compliance with standards, rules, or laws.
The following proposal was submitted for consideration:
Integrity of Awards: To protect the integrity of the NBRC and its members, and in order to insure accuracy of records
and criteria met before presenting Master Flyer Program awards, all such awards shall be reviewed by a
committee. This committee will comprise of the Vice-President, who oversees Master Flyer programs, the SecretaryTreasurer, who maintains membership records and verifies eligibility status, and the Publishing Editor, who keeps club
archives in form of NBRC publications. Once all records and criteria are verified by this committee, they will then
forward the records and criteria met for justification of each award to the President. The President will give final
approval before awards are announced and presented.
If approved, the proposal would be added to Policy Number NBRC 003 (Master Flyer Award Program) as 003.07.
NBRC Item 2013-003
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 24-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: 02-11-13
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
New Region Request – Division of Region 4 into Two Separate Entities
NBRC Item 2013-004
NBRC Item 2013-004
New Region Request – Division of Region 4 to Become Regions 4A and 4B
Competition members of Region 4, spearheaded by members residing in the state of Nebraska, requested that the
committee consider dividing the region into two separate entities. The current regional boundaries included a six state
area consisting of Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Due to the large land
mass, it has long been a logistical hardship to conduct fly competition in a timely and cost-effective manner. The
Nebraska group requested the formation of the new region as it is becoming increasingly difficult for Region 4 to
function efficiently. The Committee openly discussed and gave consideration to dividing the region to accommodate
those requisitioning the separation.
The new region would be designated as 4B, and would include the states of Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota. Remaining in the existing region and designated as 4A would be the states of Iowa, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. Region 4 RD Calder Parrot endorsed the split, with Nebraska member Ryan Santos declaring willingness
to serve as RD for the new region (upon presidential appointment) for the remainder of the year. The split was
designed and based upon logistical concerns so that members in both regions could enjoy more representation. The
competing membership in affected areas were in favor of the split.
NBRC Item 2013-004
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 23-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: 02-22-13

_____________________________________

Allowance of Canada Residents to Participate in the National Championship Fly
NBRC Item 2013-006
A formal proposal seeking allowance of Canadian residents to participate in the National Championship Fly
was introduced to the Executive Committee for its consideration and discussion.
EC Members — The following proposal, NBRC 2013-006, is submitted for discussion at this time:
Region 8A Director Jeff Meier has requested a proposal to allow Canada members to be able to fly in the NBRC
Championship Fly, should an existing region within the U.S. be willing to pick them up; effective in this year’s 2013
NBRC National Championship Competition. Due to the late timing of this request, for the 2013 competition, should
Canada be granted permission to fly this year and should any of them qualify, they will defer their qualifying spot to
the next highest score in the region in which they participated in the United States, but will be awarded the appropriate
number of Master Flyer points they earned for their qualifying spot. This will eliminate any need for the Finals Judge to
travel outside the U.S. this year.
NBRC Proposal 2013-006: Canadian NBRC members are hereby permitted to enter NBRC competitions and fly with
any existing region in the US that is willing to pick them up. This permission may be provided by any US Regional
Director who is willing to grant the Canadian members permission to enter the competition(s) in his region; and
approved by the NBRC Fly Director after being notified in writing or by e-mail, prior to the region’s qualifying round
competition being held, that such permission has been granted. Failure to notify the National Fly Director of the
inclusion of the Canadian members will result in the forfeiture of their right to participate. For the 2013 competition,
due to the late submission of this proposal, Canadian NBRC members are not eligible to participate in the finals
competition; however all members of the region, including the Canadian qualifier, will be awarded the appropriate
number of Master Flier Points they have earned in the regional competition. The regional qualifier for 2013 will be
designated as the US flier in the region in which the Canadian members are participating, who is awarded the highest
number of points in the 11-bird and/or 20-bird competitions. In all subsequent years, beginning in 2014, should a
Canadian NBRC member qualify for the finals in a US Region that has granted them permission to compete, their
spot in the finals will be honored and the finals judge is to be scheduled to travel to their location in order to judge the
qualifying kit or kits.
Historical perspective: On March 9, 2010 the NBRC passed a proposal that dissolved the dormant Canada regions,
as well as determined International members to be ineligible to fly in our annual national fly due to their inactivity. This
policy, recorded as NBRC Item 2010-01 (International Membership), in effect did away with Regions 10-11-12 and in
summary stated: “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.” Canada participated in what
was called the “Fall Fly” in past years, but the regions went dormant for several years and were dissolved by EC
committee vote in 2010.
Committee members agreed that in allowing Canadian residents to participate in NCF competition would significantly
benefit border regions struggling to attract enough flyers to meet the required minimum for legitimacy. The main
concern expressed involved the fact that US citizens crossing over the border to Canada are now required to possess
a passport for entry, a requirement since 2009. Canadian law states: “Anyone with a criminal record (including
misdemeanors or alcohol-related driving offenses) may not be able to enter Canada without first obtaining an approval
for rehabilitation well in advance of any planned travel.” Thus, border regions seeking outside entries would have to
screen potential judges to make sure they possess a valid passport and are able to cross the border. Equally
important, anyone who volunteers to judge the NCF Finals must possess, or obtain, a valid passport in the event that
a Canadian flyer wins the region and qualifies for the final round.
NBRC Item 2013-006
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 28-0 vote. 14 Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 09-16-13

____________________________________________

Bylaw Amendment – Article V – Duties of Officers
NBRC Item 2014-003
The passage of NBRC Item 2014-002 (Amendment to Bylaws – Article IV) on March 3, 2014 created a
domino effect whereas other bylaws required amending in order to be compliant. Article V was addressed
by the Committee, specifically pertaining to the job descriptions for the Director-at-Large, Public Relations
Director, and Publishing Editor.
Existing Bylaw:
Article V — Duties of Officers
Section 5
The Executive Committee shall consist of the President, Vice President, Secretary – Treasurer, Regional Directors,
Director-At-Large, Publishing Editor and National Fly Director and shall be the governing body of the National
Birmingham Roller Club. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be recorded for the record and maintained on file
by the Secretary – Treasurer.
Section 6
A quorum of fifty percent plus one is required to conduct the business of the Executive Committee.
Section 7
The Publishing Editor shall be appointed by the President. In addition to performing public relations duties as
necessary, the Publishing Editor shall publish the NBRC Bulletin. The Executive Committee shall establish a yearly
stipend to be paid on a quarterly basis to the Secretary-Treasurer and to the Publishing Editor. The NBRC treasury
shall bear the costs of reasonable travel and room expenses to enable the Publishing Editor to attend NBRC annual
conventions.
Proposed Amendment
Article V — Duties of Officers
Section 5
The Publishing Editor shall be elected by the general membership for a term of four years. The Publishing Editor shall
publish the NBRC Bulletin. The Executive Committee shall establish a yearly stipend to be paid on a quarterly basis to
the Secretary-Treasurer and to the Publishing Editor. The NBRC treasury shall bear the costs of reasonable travel
and room expenses to enable the Publishing Editor to attend NBRC annual conventions.
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

Section 7
Upon expiration of his two-year term of office, the President automatically succeeds to the office of Director-at-large
with no requirement of additional election to qualify for that office. In this capacity, he serves to assist the President in
the control and administration of NBRC affairs, particularly in coordinating the annual NBRC Convention He is
responsible for soliciting potential host clubs; for evaluating the qualifications of their particular region of the country
as hosts for the convention; for working with the host and the NBRC Secretary-Treasurer in the decisions as to the
selection of the hotel convention site, buses, meals, design and fabrication of convention t-shirts and hats; as well as
any other related issues necessary in the planning of the annual NBRC Convention. He will communicate and
coordinate with the President in his recommendations as to the final recommendations of the Director-at-large and the
Secretary-Treasurer regarding these issues. The Director-at-large is also in charge of the fabrication of plaques as
required by the President, to award to various members and club officers for their service and accomplishments,
excluding the National Championship Competition plaques, which are the responsibility of the National Fly Director.
Section 8
The Executive Committee shall consist of the President, Vice President, Secretary – Treasurer, Regional Directors,
Director-At-Large, Publishing Editor, National Fly Director, and Public Relations Director and shall be the governing
body of the National Birmingham Roller Club. Meetings of the Executive Committee shall be recorded for the record
and maintained on file by the Publishing Editor.
Section 9
A quorum of fifty percent plus one is required to conduct the business of the Executive Committee.
NBRC Item 2014-003
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 28-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-12-14
_________________________________________________

Approval of Individuals Serving in Multiple Offices
NBRC Item 2014-004
Two Executive Committee members were appointed or elected to serve dual offices prior to bylaw revision
on March 6, 2014 — Revision of NBRC Item 2014-002 (Amendment to Bylaws – Article IV). In that action,
Section 6 was revised to state that “Any officer serving in two elected positions, with said approval, shall
only be allowed one vote on the Executive Committee.” In order to quell challenges that officeholders were
illegitimate and to become compliant to revised policy, a proposal was made to officially approve the
multiple offices for Nick Siders (Vice-President and 5B Regional Director) and Don Macauley (Director-atLarge, National Fly Director, and Junior Program Coordinator). Approval would not revise an existing bylaw
nor create a new one; with the activity simply being proper protocol with having officers serving multiple
offices.
Article IV, Section 6
Individuals Serving in Multiple Offices
Individuals may submit their candidacy to run for both national and regional office at one and the same time; however,
no candidate shall hold more than one elected office, national or regional, at the same time. Exceptions, if any, shall
require the approval of both the President and the Executive Committee. Any officer serving in more than one elected
position, with said approval, shall only be allowed one vote in the Executive Committee.
Proposal
In compliance with Article IV, Section 6 it was proposed that the Executive Committee: 1) approve Nick Siders to hold
both the office of Vice-President of the NBRC as well as Regional Director for 5B, and 2) approve Don Macauley to
hold the national offices of Director-at-Large, National Fly Director, and Junior Program Coordinator, with each
individual to have only one vote on the Executive Committee.
NBRC Item 2014-004
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 27-0 vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-17-14
___________________________________________________

Bylaw Amendment – Article III – Membership and Dues
NBRC Item 2014-005
Recommendation was made to reword “Article III — Membership and Dues” for enhanced clarity and more
precise meaning. In addition, passage of the measure would grant lifetime membership to all members of
the NBRC Hall of Fame. Significant rewording is underlined in the proposed amendment.
Existing Bylaw:
Article III — Membership and Dues
Section 1. Any person who breeds Birmingham Rollers is eligible for membership by paying the prescribed yearly
dues and agreeing to comply with the rules, regulations, Constitution and By-laws of the NBRC. Family memberships
are also available for named individuals, together with their spouses/partners and/or children 12 years old or over and
residing in the same household. Those individuals who are NBRC members through family memberships will receive
one periodic NBRC Bulletin per family membership in the name of the designated primary member. Family
memberships shall be entitled to one vote in the election of NBRC officers or for any other matter brought before the
club membership for voting. Each named member of the household that is eligible for family membership is eligible for
participation in the annual NBRC National Championship Fly competition and in the NBRC Master Flier program to
receive points under his/her own name, independent of the other named family members; however, in each
competition, a maximum of four kits may be entered per family membership.
Section 2. The Executive Committee shall have the following authority and power with regards to membership:
a) Establish and regulate a schedule of dues for memberships of various types.
b) Discipline members up to and including expulsion, who fail to adhere to the bylaws and policies of this Club, for
actions detrimental to the Club or hobby, and/or fail to conduct themselves in a gentlemanly and sportsman-like
manner.
c) Establish guidelines and/or policies for membership.
Section 3. The NBRC Secretary shall have the authority to drop members who fail to submit their prescribed dues
within their activation month; this shall include any other membership that may be linked to the dropped member.
Proposed Amendment
Article III — Membership and Dues
Section 1. Any person who currently breeds Birmingham Rollers, has bred them in the past, or has a genuine interest
in the Birmingham Roller breed of pigeon is eligible for membership by paying the prescribed yearly dues and
agreeing to comply with the rules, regulations, and Constitution and By-laws of the club. Family memberships are
also available for named individuals, together with their spouses/partners and/or children 12 years old or over and
residing in the same household. Those individuals who are NBRC members through family memberships will receive
one periodic NBRC Bulletin per family membership in the name of the designated primary member. Family
memberships shall be entitled to one vote in the election of NBRC officers or for any other matter brought before the
club membership for voting. Each named member of the household that is eligible for family membership is eligible for
participation in the annual NBRC National Championship Fly competition and in the NBRC Master Flier program to
receive points under his/her own name, independent of the other named family members; however, in each
competition, a maximum of four kits may be entered per family membership.
Section 2. Members will at all times conduct themselves in a gentlemanly and sportsman-like manner and uphold the
positive public image of the NBRC and the pigeon hobby, in general. Penalties for misconduct, as determined by the
NBRC Executive Committee, may result in a member being suspended or expelled from the club.
Section 3. The amount payable by club members for annual membership dues shall be determined by the Executive
Committee and periodically reconsidered as needed.

Section 4. Membership dues are due annually on the anniversary date of membership activation. Failure to submit
within activation month will result in a member being dropped from the club membership list and future bulletins will
not be issued. Each member’s due date will be on each bulletin and it is incumbent upon the member to keep his/her
dues current.
Section 5. Those individuals who are currently members of the Hall of Fame, or are inducted into the Hall of Fame in
the future, will be granted a lifetime membership in the NBRC.
Executive Committee Debate
There was unison support for the modification of Sections 1-4 of the proposed amendment, but committee members
were divisive on Section 5. While most members were in complete agreement that Hall of Fame inductees deserved
the entitlement, nearly half of those voting were not in favor of the treasury funding the proposal. Allocating funds
therefore sparked a considerable amount of healthy debate before the issue was resolved.
NBRC Item 2014-005
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by an 18-17 vote.
Acceptance Date: 03-27-14

_______________________________________________________________
NBRC 2014-006
At the deadline date for this bulletin’s content, the Executive Committee was In the process of addressing
NBRC Fly Policy 001.07, which currently reads:
Flyers who cross over regional boundaries to fly in another adjacent region, must first notify, in
writing, the Regional Directors of both regions in order to prevent the possibility of duplication. In so
doing, members who choose to fly in another region, other than the region in which they reside,
may only vote for Regional Director in their home region.
The proposed revision which would amend policy was presented as:
Regional Directors must include any and all NBRC members who reside in their region and want to
compete; assuming they pay the fly fees necessary to compete in the regional competitions of the NBRC
National Championships. The Regional Director may include a surcharge adequate to cover the cost of
gas/mileage to transport the judge to remote locations greater than 2 ½ hours or 150 miles. Competitors
may only participate in one region’s qualifying competitions and may not compete in either the 20-bird or
the 11-bird competition in an adjacent region if their home region is not offering one of the competition
venues. Fliers may not cross over regional boundaries to fly in adjacent regions if, in doing so, their home
region will not have enough fliers to generate a qualifier in the finals.
Fliers who wish to cross over regional boundaries to fly in an adjacent region, must first request it in
writing or by e-mail, no later than 30 days prior to the earliest competition is to be held by the earliest of the
two regional competitions in that year. If this deadline is not met, any changes that are made will not take
effect until the competition that is to be held in the following year. The request must be submitted to the
Regional Director of each region and to the NBRC National Fly Director. Regional Directors who receive
such a request are expected to consult with the competitors in their regions before reaching a decision, in
order to gauge the willingness of the fliers in the region to accept a flier from outside the their region or to
lose a flier to an adjacent region. Consent from the National Fly Director and, at least, one of the Regional
Directors is required for the approval of the request to fly in an adjacent region. Once granted, such
petitions to compete in adjacent regions are considered permanent until such time as they are requested
and reversed through this same process as described herein. If approved, members who choose to fly in
another region, other than the region in which they reside, may only vote for Regional Director in their
home region.
Based on the complexity of this issue and intensity of emotion expressed in the discussion period, each
item in this proposal will be individually debated and voted upon.

________________________________________________-

DIVISION OF REGION 2C
NBRC Item 2014-019
Flyers residing in the state of Mississippi formally requested that Region 2C, whose boundaries consisted
of Louisiana and Mississippi, be split to create Region 2E, which would designate the state as a separate
entity. RD Aubrey Thibodeaux (2C) supported the split, citing that an additional 14-hour drive was
necessary to include the Mississippi fliers with those in Louisiana. The distance influenced participation in
some years when they (Mississippi fliers) were omitted from the competition when they wanted to compete
due to judge acquisition. Thibodeaux expressed confidence that Louisiana will continue to recruit enough
kits for a qualifier without the Mississippi flyers. If the new region (2E) was approved by the EC, Pha Hall
volunteered to serve as the RD. Names of Mississippi flyers that supported the proposal accompanied the
request.
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a 24-2 vote. 12 Members did not vote.
Acceptance Date: 12-03-14

_________________________________
DIVISION OF REGION 9A
NBRC Item 2014-020
A group of members residing in Region 9A region formally requested that the region be split into two
separate entities, making the area more manageable because of the large number of fliers. The boundary
of the new region would be from Santa Monica East along Highway 10 until it intersects with the 605
Freeway, then south along 605 to Seal Beach, ending at the coast (a map was provided for the EC to
evaluate). The members behind the proposal cited that because of the region’s vast size, it has long been
a logistical and financial hardship on 9A to conduct fly competitions in a timely manner due to the large
number of fliers. To accommodate the flyers in the former (original) 9A area, the flyers requested the
separation and formation of Region 9J.
The EC members were torn and debated heavily on how best to resolve the matter. The general feeling
was that the actual intent behind the proposal was based upon personal relationships and differences, with
the overriding concern that it was more of a people issue than a geographical one.
Those in favor recognized legitimate concerns that the old 9A boundary of 605 is no longer a clear dividing
line between the two camps of roller men, and things are no longer geographically distinct. Separating the
flyers into two regions would respond to the concerns of 20-30 9A members who were indicating they
would not participate under the new boundary assignment
Those in opposition contended that whenever a region requests a split due to geographic issues or having
not been allowed to participate in their region due to the logistics, then it represents a legitimate reason to
sub-divide an area, based on past and present guidelines on how regions are formed. This proposal was
based upon neither. It was felt that in giving a particular group of flyers a “custom” region based upon their
choice of either flying or not flying, the club would setting a dangerous precedent.
In casting a vote for or against the proposal, each member of the EC had to decide whether the negative
was strong enough to outweigh any benefit that would be gained.
Vote Result: The item failed to pass the committee by a vote of 11-16. 11 Members did not vote.
Rejection Date: 12-10-14

___________________________________

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 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:
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.
2. 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.
3. 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

4. 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.
5. 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
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:
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
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. 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:
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.
2. 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 canno t 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:
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.
2. 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.
3. 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:
4. 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:
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.
2. 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.

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 amemnment

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 perspective 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 canvass 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 define 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 Preside nt,
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 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
birds 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
with 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” 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 HALL OF FAME VOTING PROCEDURAL CHANGE
NBRC ITEM 2021-001
The NBRC Hall of Fame election process ran into a snag whereas no one garnered enough votes for admission due
to a larger than normal number of nominees. Annual nominations have traditionally been low in number, but during
the open nomination period last year a dozen individual names were submitted for consideration. While not necessity
or a requirement that someone be inducted each and every year, a repeat number of nominations would result in an
identical stalemate. Simply put, a large number of candidates resulted in a widespread distribution of votes rendering
it difficult for any single individual to gain over 66% of the votes for acceptance.
President Kelly addressed the committee by submitting the following: “Let me say from the outset this is not an
attempt to water down the election process. No one is more supportive of the honor that the Hall of Fame election
bestows on our members and to the previous people that have been selected to this special group. However, we have
run into something that represents the HOF being a victim of the success of our membership, as a whole, wanting to
honor very deserving people. This past election process resulted in 12 people being nominated for the HOF. We
currently have 21 voting members in the HOF and they can use 3 votes each as they select who they think deserve to
be voted into the HOF. In order to be elected, a nominee has to be named on 66% of the returned ballots. If no one
receives the required 66%, then a second ballot is prepared with names of the nominees that were named on at least
50% of the returned ballots. 66% is still required on the second ballot in order to be elected to the HOF.
Now for the issue that needs to be addressed. Of the 12 nominees that were on the first ballot this past year, none
received the required 66% to gain the HOF. Not only that, no one received the 50% needed to be placed on a second
ballot. The reason behind this is not because no one nominated was deserving. Quite the contrary, there were so
many deserving names that the votes were spread too thin. The proposal that is being presented hopes to solve this
issue.”
The existing policy mandated: 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.
The proposed revision which is thought to remedy the shortcoming and allow the process work for years such as the
previous one where a large number of nominees are on the ballot states:
1. Round one of the HOF voting will allow the voting members to cast votes for up to 3 listed nominees.
2. A nominee needs to be named on at least 66% of the returned ballots in order to be elected to the HOF.
3. If no nominee receives the required number of votes in the first round, a second round of ballots will be prepared.
4. The second round of ballots will consist of the top 50% of the names from the first round or the top 3
names from the first ballot, whichever is smaller.
5. The voting members for the second round will be allowed to select up to 2 names on their ballot.
6. Each nominee that receives at least 66% of the votes on the 2nd ballot will gain entry to the HOF.
7. If no nominee receives the required number of votes in the second round, then subsequent rounds will be held
using the same method starting at step #4 above.
The proposal passed the committee by approval vote of 14-5

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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
__________________________________________________________________
NBRC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTIONS ON MEMBER BEHAVIOR
As you will see on voting results on the next few pages the NBRC Executive Committee
unfortunately had to take action on 2 of our members for violating our bylaws/rules.
The first case involved violation of the NBRC Fly Policy (10) Integrity- The judge shall NOT
score anything that does not meet his standard for adequate quality and depth or duration of the
performance. This competition is for ROLLERS and not tumblers! Roller flying is a subjective
sport and the judge may have to make allowances for extraordinary circumstances.
In any case, the judge’s decision is final and anyone verbally or physically attacking the judge will be
disqualified from the fly and may be banned from future NBRC events. During Region 8C’s region qualifying
fly a incident occurred between the Judge and member Billy Dyer. Billy became upset with happenings
on the fly and became verbally abusive towards the Judge, as well as ended up taking the score pad that
had all the current results on it and
refusing to return it or copies of the scores to the Judge. RD Ken Billings was able to retrieve
the score pad from Billy the following day. A formal complaint was filed and a Investigating
Committee was assigned by President Dan Galarza. After the investigation was complete the
Committee felt these actions were in violation of the rules and it was presented to the Executive
Committee for options to vote on for action taken. The majority voted for suspension of Billy
and disqualification from this year’s fly. The voting results are on the next few pages.
The second case involved violation of NBRC Bylaw Section 2- Members will at all times
conduct themselves in a gentlemanly and sportsman-like manner and uphold the positive public
image of the NBRC and the pigeon hobby, in general. Penalties for misconduct, as determined
by the NBRC Executive Committee, may result in a member being suspended or expelled from
the club. At the AARC Lawn Show an incident occurred in which NBRC member George Aldana was the
winning bidder on 2 young birds from the show auction. Upon winning the birds George went to
the show cage they were in and took each bird out and proceeded to pull each bird’s head off and
throw them on the ground. As he walked away he said “Garbage”. His actions were done in
front of all the show participants, including children. This was also captured on video that was
posted on social networks. Formal complaints were received and again a Investigations
Committee was formed. The Committee determined George’s actions were in violation of
NBRC bylaws and this was presented to the Executive Committee with options on actions to be
taken. The committee voted to suspend George from the club. Results of the vote are on the
following pages. 2 unfortunate situations that have impacted our club and members negatively, including the 2
members suspended. Remember this is a hobby and should be kept fun, whether competing or
just attending an event. More importantly we need to treat each other and the hobby with respect. Regardless to our background, beliefs, hobbies, etc.
respect is something involved at any level.
Billy Dyer vote:
Voting Tabulation Conducted by Dwayne White – NBRC Executive Committee Facilitator
Vote Result: The item passed the committee by a vote of 21-1. 16 Members did not vote. Acceptance Date: 04-05-22
George Aldana Vote:
Totals Votes Cast A (4) 3 year suspension  – B (22) 5 year suspension – C (8) life = 34 Total Votes 3 Members did not vote.
Vote Result: Item “B” passed by the committee by a vote of 22. Acceptance Date: 06-28-22
Both members must submit a written apology to the NBRC President that the EC must approve and be printed in the NBRC Bulletin before being accepted back as a member of the NBRC upon their suspension expiring.
en_USEnglish