R/C Tech Forums

Go Back   R/C Tech Forums > International Forums > Australian Racing

Like Tree76Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-03-2017, 01:31 AM   #871
Tech Master
 
vr01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud Qld'er in Sydney
Posts: 1,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplus View Post
Chris - as soon as written they will be made available to clubs if they request them.

Suggest if you want any of the comments we make backed up, contact Brad Riksman. He was there in person. I’m sure he would be more than happy to share his views.
Come on Clive that is really poor from a governance perspective. The minutes of the AGM should be already done (allowing time for you guys to get home and sort through everything) and published to the clubs. The clubs shouldn't have to request the minutes.
__________________
TOPRACING.NET.AU Australian Importer of:
T.O.P. Tokyo Hobbies Optional Parts, Elangears - Chargers
Team Trinity - BL Motors and Tyre compound,
TQ Wire, RW Racing - Pinions & Spurs
vr01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 01:51 AM   #872
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,380
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vr01 View Post
Come on Clive that is really poor from a governance perspective. The minutes of the AGM should be already done (allowing time for you guys to get home and sort through everything) and published to the clubs. The clubs shouldn't have to request the minutes.
Chris - there isn’t even a requirement for us to take minutes actually.

The association AGM, yes. The section “AGMs” - no.

And in terms of governance - NOT ONE CLUB contacted AARCMCC in advance to nominate who would be their delegate at the AGM as is required.

So other than Ed, no one there actually had a right to be there.....
gigaplex likes this.
cplus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 02:29 PM   #873
Tech Master
 
ShadowAu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere you'd never heard of
Posts: 1,532
Trader Rating: 7 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gigaplex View Post
The flip side (pun intended) to extra track prep like putting down sugar is that it can hurt some classes, traction rolling minis come to mind. I like the SERCCC track better when it's unprepared.
No disrespect to the mighty mini (a class I've enjoyed over the years as well) but it would have to be one of the very few classes that extra prep would possibly hurt, and when comparing the 2 - 1/12 is the internationally sanctioned class and occasionally I think we forget to look at the bigger picture. If that means the mini people need to work out how to stop a bit of traction rolling so we can get more interest in 1/12 then I say get the sugar out.

Since this is not the overall purpose of the AARCMCC thread thats the last I'll say here about it.. Cheers
__________________
I am quite content with doing what I do

Don't mistake not being happy for unhappiness - its not the same thing
ShadowAu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 03:52 PM   #874
No9
Tech Fanatic
 
No9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The track
Posts: 903
Trader Rating: 12 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplus View Post
NOT ONE CLUB contacted AARCMCC in advance to nominate who would be their delegate at the AGM as is required.

So other than Ed, no one there actually had a right to be there.....
The clubs were not required to nominate due to the vote for section head/secretary and so forth being done electronically.

In regards to the current 1/12 stock 13.5 class proposal,It's my understanding that this was raised at the 2016 Nationals AGM and the drivers rejected 13.5 in favour of the current 10.5 motors is this correct?

I would be in favour of an amendment to the current proposal in the form which motor should be used.
__________________
Schumacher Mi5evo/Ko Ex1v2/LRP/R1 wurks


Supported by MRJ RACING.COM.AU

Last edited by No9; 12-03-2017 at 04:14 PM.
No9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 06:17 PM   #875
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,172
Trader Rating: 302 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No9 View Post
The clubs were not required to nominate due to the vote for section head/secretary and so forth being done electronically.

In regards to the current 1/12 stock 13.5 class proposal,It's my understanding that this was raised at the 2016 Nationals AGM and the drivers rejected 13.5 in favour of the current 10.5 motors is this correct?

I would be in favour of an amendment to the current proposal in the form which motor should be used.
I just re-read the facebook event for the AGM, twice, no mention there that clubs had to nominate a delegate in advance.
__________________
A800, GT500W, M07

"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's entire life believing it is stupid"

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 07:44 PM   #876
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,380
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
I just re-read the facebook event for the AGM, twice, no mention there that clubs had to nominate a delegate in advance.
Clubs were told.

It’s been the same EVERY year. It’s written in black and white very clearly in the constitution.
cplus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 07:49 PM   #877
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,380
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No9 View Post
The clubs were not required to nominate due to the vote for section head/secretary and so forth being done electronically.
Clubs still need to nominate who is attending to speak on their behalf. It’s always been that way.

We can’t have a situation where someone rocks up and says “I’m from blah blah club” and simply take their word for it.

That’s happened in the past, and it turned out someone who said they represented a club, not only wasn’t a member of the club they said they were but was actually someone who the club specifically wouldn’t want speaking on their behalf (ex member) and didn’t even reside in the state anymore.

Sadly, the actions of the few ruin it for the many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No9 View Post
In regards to the current 1/12 stock 13.5 class proposal,It's my understanding that this was raised at the 2016 Nationals AGM and the drivers rejected 13.5 in favour of the current 10.5 motors is this correct
No. It was not mentioned at the 2016 AGM.

Edit: apologies. It was. The concept of 1/12th stock was raised. It had “50/50” support and the comment was “10.5 made sense based on good numbers at AOC”

We discussed 2S lipos for 1/12th which IFMAR were reviewing at the time only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No9 View Post
I would be in favour of an amendment to the current proposal in the form which motor should be used.
That would be going against the decision at the meeting.

However, if you feel strongly that should be the case, mention it to your club and they can request an amendment. Not saying it will change anything, but they can request it.

Last edited by cplus; 12-04-2017 at 01:43 AM.
cplus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2017, 07:56 PM   #878
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,172
Trader Rating: 302 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplus View Post
Clubs were told.

It’s been the same EVERY year. It’s written in black and white very clearly in the constitution.
Then the section head should not have held the meeting, yet he chose to.

Our understanding was as there was no votes taking place the reason for clubs having a set elected nominee was no longer relevant and therefore not required and we certainly had no indication of anything to the contrary leading up to and during the AGM.

If something was sent to the clubs, please advise when and to what email address, so I can ask my club's executive to investigate why the communication was not passed on.
__________________
A800, GT500W, M07

"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's entire life believing it is stupid"

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:13 AM   #879
Tech Champion
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 5,299
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
Then the section head should not have held the meeting, yet he chose to.

Our understanding was as there was no votes taking place the reason for clubs having a set elected nominee was no longer relevant and therefore not required and we certainly had no indication of anything to the contrary leading up to and during the AGM.

If something was sent to the clubs, please advise when and to what email address, so I can ask my club's executive to investigate why the communication was not passed on.
Actually, we had more than enough club representation to hold a meeting, so I was quite within the sections rights to continue.
We had;
NSW - SMA, Whalan
VIC - TFTR, Geelong, SERRCC
ACT - ACTMRC
QLD - Logan
WA - PRECC, WestCoast
SA - RRCSA
This easily achieves the 25% of clubs, and 25% of states to have a quorum. Maybe have your lawyers check the constitution on that, as you announced you have previously done at the meeting.

So if the committee had chosen to take votes there and then, we could have done also. As it was, we actually felt it more prudent to not vote without the all clubs present, and simply have a "state of the union" meeting, and the opportunity to discuss relevant topics. Which is exactly what happened.
__________________
| THard.co.uk | Xray | MuchMore |
TryHard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:18 AM   #880
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,172
Trader Rating: 302 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TryHard View Post
Actually, we had more than enough club representation to hold a meeting, so I was quite within the sections rights to continue.
We had;
NSW - SMA, Whalan
VIC - TFTR, Geelong, SERRCC
ACT - ACTMRC
QLD - Logan
WA - PRECC, WestCoast
SA - RRCSA
This easily achieves the 25% of clubs, and 25% of states to have a quorum. Maybe have your lawyers check the constitution on that, as you announced you have previously done at the meeting.

So if the committee had chosen to take votes there and then, we could have done also. As it was, we actually felt it more prudent to not vote without the all clubs present, and simply have a "state of the union" meeting, and the opportunity to discuss relevant topics. Which is exactly what happened.
I wasn't questioning the validity of the meeting, I merely stated that 'if' none of us had a right to be there as Clive had asserted, you were within your rights to not hold the meeting. I personally didn't have an issue with the meeting taking place and that it was conducted in accordance as it should have been as per the constitution and the governing regulations.
__________________
A800, GT500W, M07

"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's entire life believing it is stupid"

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:30 AM   #881
Tech Champion
 
TryHard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW
Posts: 5,299
Trader Rating: 4 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
Then the section head should not have held the meeting, yet he chose to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
I wasn't questioning the validity of the meeting, I merely stated that 'if' none of us had a right to be there as Clive had asserted, you were within your rights to not hold the meeting. I personally didn't have an issue with the meeting taking place and that it was conducted in accordance as it should have been as per the constitution and the governing regulations.
Read that opening line of your previous post, and tell me where you aren't implying the meeting shouldn't have run, and ergo, it's validity.
gigaplex likes this.
__________________
| THard.co.uk | Xray | MuchMore |
TryHard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 12:34 AM   #882
Tech Champion
 
nexxus's Avatar
R/C Tech Elite Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 8,172
Trader Rating: 302 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TryHard View Post
Read that opening line of your previous post, and tell me where you aren't implying the meeting shouldn't have run, and ergo, it's validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cplus View Post
Chris - there isn’t even a requirement for us to take minutes actually.

The association AGM, yes. The section “AGMs” - no.

And in terms of governance - NOT ONE CLUB contacted AARCMCC in advance to nominate who would be their delegate at the AGM as is required.

So other than Ed, no one there actually had a right to be there.....
Only in response to the statement made by Clive. I am not at all querying the validity of the meeting however it was stated by a sitting committee member that we should not have been there was it not?

Meeting was fine as far as I was concerned.
__________________
A800, GT500W, M07

"If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's entire life believing it is stupid"

nexxus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 01:22 AM   #883
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,380
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nexxus View Post
Only in response to the statement made by Clive. I am not at all querying the validity of the meeting however it was stated by a sitting committee member that we should not have been there was it not?

Meeting was fine as far as I was concerned.
I’ll rephrase. “Technically” other then Ed, no one had a “formal” right to be there.

Ed, appropriate for the situation went ahead with the “meeting” but did not allow any formal activities (voting) to be undertaken.

Notification of the AGM was sent on 7 October.
cplus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 02:10 AM   #884
Tech Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 434
Trader Rating: 2 (100%+)
Default

Guys, Clive's post a couple of pages back (#865) says that 13.5 was voted on. But the posts on this page say no voting occured.

If no formal voting occurred, then it wouldn't hurt to debate the 13.5 vs 10.5 motors and hear from the guys that actually race 1/12. We have a fair bit of experience running 10.5 across the country, both on carpet and asphalt. But I doubt there would be much, if any, experience running 13.5.

I think we all need to take a breath, do some testing of 13.5 1/12, and see what actually works best. I can see pros and cons of both motors, but I don't think we're in a position to vote just yet.
ShadowAu and No9 like this.
__________________
Scott Tapsall
Queensland Radio Circuit Car Racing Association
Pine Rivers Model Powerboat Club
Scott_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2017, 02:33 AM   #885
Tech Elite
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,380
Trader Rating: 9 (100%+)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_T View Post
Guys, Clive's post a couple of pages back (#865) says that 13.5 was voted on. But the posts on this page say no voting occured.
Note a vote. It was a direction from the meeting.

There is a difference. Essentially;

Vote: it’s done. The rule change can be applied. Committee empowered to execute.

Direction: prepare a proposal and put to clubs to vote.

The current EPONR committee are not fans of the former at AGMs - not wide enough representation and potentially open to abuse.
cplus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. It is currently 10:26 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Powered By: vBulletin v3.9.2.1
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Advertise Content © 2001-2011 RCTech.net