POLL: NFPA 1122 VS State Exemptions & the NAR MRSC

[billspad]

I can confirm the account is true. 2 certified letters sent approx 30 days apart to the address listed on the NAR web site. I can also confirm that Marie signed for at least one of those letters.

So the NAR President read this and immediately sent mail to the S & T chairmen and secretary telling them to get to the bottom of it. Can you save us some time and tell us who this manufacturer is? Feel free to send me email if you don't want to post it here.

And just to add to something I read as I skimmed through all of this stuff, I'm pretty sure that John Lyngdal sent copies of the manual to manufacturers who have had motors certified in the past and I believe he did this by email. Try to keep in mind that we've been working on this for well over a year and it's only been official for a couple of weeks. The whole point was to make it crystal clear what our policies are and make them readily available.

 

[Peartree]

Terry and all,

(First, I apologize, I seem to have written my own lengthy discourse...)

I admit I did not read ALL of what eveyone posted but I did a fair job of reading most of it. In a previous job I spent ten years working in a highly regulated environment (a testing laboratory) where we certified appliances for compliance with national safety codes. Here is my perspective from that experience:

Because of the existance of national safety codes, whether they are adopted locally OR NOT, local authoritues will use these codes as guidelines and, if they choose to write their own, will even use the national codes as a basis for what they write even if they do not adopt them verbatim. The end result is that even in places that no not use the national codes directly, the local codes and the national codes will all look a lot alike.

In Europe, fuel gas codes developed along national boundaries and all are very distinct which requires manufacturers to go to a significantly more difficult design process (or multiple design processes) to comply with the variety of codes that exist. Even with the harmonization efforts of the EU significant remnants of the earlier national codes still remain within the EU "harmonized" codes.

What worked in the sixties and seventies cannot be trusted to work today. We live in a different world. We now live in a highly litigious (lawsuit happy) environment. Nobody would have ever thought to sue McDonalds for millions in 1965 because their coffee was hot, but our courts are now flooded with this insanity.

I admit to being an outsider on this argument but this is what I see:

If NAR can get REASONABLE safety codes (not just launch codes but testing and compliance codes, etc.) codified into national safety codes, they do a service to every manufacurer and in fact, every consumer, by proactively keeping the lawyers off of our backs and by providing a guideline that local officials can see, read, study and choose to follow (or not). It simply keeps everybody on the same page (or close to it) so we don't get fifty or a thousand different codes based on a thousand local lawsuits.

Incorporating such a safety code into local regulations by stealth (if I have read correctly) is an entirely separate issue that I choose not to discuss.

 

[shreadvector]

So the NAR President read this and immediately sent mail to the S & T chairmen and secretary telling them to get to the bottom of it. Can you save us some time and tell us who this manufacturer is? Feel free to send me email if you don't want to post it here.

And just to add to something I read as I skimmed through all of this stuff, I'm pretty sure that John Lyngdal sent copies of the manual to manufacturers who have had motors certified in the past and I believe he did this by email. Try to keep in mind that we've been working on this for well over a year and it's only been official for a couple of weeks. The whole point was to make it crystal clear what our policies are and make them readily available.

I wonder if it is "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named"?

 

[SecretSquirrel]

So the NAR President read this and immediately sent mail to the S & T chairmen and secretary telling them to get to the bottom of it. Can you save us some time and tell us who this manufacturer is? Feel free to send me email if you don't want to post it here.

And just to add to something I read as I skimmed through all of this stuff, I'm pretty sure that John Lyngdal sent copies of the manual to manufacturers who have had motors certified in the past and I believe he did this by email. Try to keep in mind that we've been working on this for well over a year and it's only been official for a couple of weeks. The whole point was to make it crystal clear what our policies are and make them readily available.

By the emails I received in the wee hours of the morning, NAR S&T and the manufacturer in question are in contact and this issue is now being resolved behind the scenes. There's no need for me to comment further in public.

 

[Johnly]

2muchstuff contacted me last night and we had a lengthy discussion on this topic. I think most of the issues have been identified and have either been mitigated or corrective actions identified.

It is the intent of NAR S&T to operate using a fair and transparent process, so that everyone can see the expectations and deliverables of all parties involved. To push this forward, the new S&T documents are available for public viewing at:

https://www.nar.org/SandT/docs/

The corrected contact information for NAR S&T are:

John J. Kane, Chairman
23 Bungay Road
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 339-6439

John Lyngdal, Secretary
17775 SW Janell Court
Beaverton, OR 97006
(503) 341-8858 <= new phone number

I'm also on line during the work day and can be reached using the e-mail link on the NAR website

John Lyngdal
NAR Trustee
NAR Standards and Testing

 

[billspad]

I noticed that 2muchstuff is the only person on this thread who doesn't have a signature that identifies who he is. How about coming out from behind the curtain?

 

[shockwaveriderz]

I'm glad to see TMS got his issue resolved; I'm not sure what if anything it has to do with the intent of this post, but it must be a good thing when problems are ironed out.

This will be my last missive on this post (and I can hear the shouts of thank god!) but I want the TRF community to notice that in all of this nobody from the NAR has directed or indirectly even bothered to answer my queries.

Ted played the "fear" card: If it wasn't for NFPA 1122 the jails would be full of innocent model rocketeers; now of course what he didn't say, is that everything he said might happen to you can still happen to you, NFPA regulations or not.

You see, thats because NFPA 1122 is unenforceable by the state fire officials. For NFPA to work to protect you from being harrassed by a police officier or other, you would have to carry NFPA 1122/27 around with you.

Everybody raise their hands that paid to have a copy of NFPA 1122.

If you showed the policeman your NAR card and a copy of the NAR MRSC, I think the poiliceman would soon come to the conclusion that Model Rocketry is probably ok.

Finally, the FAA exempted models rockets in 1963 and basically defined what a modle rocket is. Then in circa 70/71 the CPSC defined what a model rocket motor is and at the same time model rockets were exempted from the Hazardous Products Act. Then we have a number of states that actually exempt model rockets from their fireworks laws. Then in the early 1970's the NFPA Fireworks codes themselve EXEMPT model rocketry from fireworks! DO you see the pattern that is emrging here?

Exempt,Exempt,Exempt.... at the federal and state level.

But the NFPA and the NAR was not satified with all of that Exemeption: they still forced NFPA 1122 upon the states because it would benefit the NFPA and the NAR: but not the Consumer.

The typical model rocket consumer does not know that the NFPA even exists nor that the a NFPA FIRECODE regulates their hobby. But the typical model rocket consumer is introduced to the NAR by its MRSC that Estes includes in all of its model rocket packages and most of its kits(or at least it used to).

I'm not so naive to believe that everybody that is NEW to model rocketry bothers to RTFM, in this case the motor instruction sheet. But I would make a SWAG that a lot do read it and followup: How else to explains years of model rocketry safety and No NFPA 1122 was in effect then?


ok thats all....

thanks for taking the time to listen to me.


terry dean
nar 16158


kermieD: you can now lock and throw away the key on this thread if you so desire. And thanks for allowing me to express my views on this subject.

 

[billspad]

Some of this is too strange not to comment on.

You see, thats because NFPA 1122 is unenforceable by the state fire officials. For NFPA to work to protect you from being harrassed by a police officier or other, you would have to carry NFPA 1122/27 around with you.

Everybody raise their hands that paid to have a copy of NFPA 1122.

Do you really think that carrying a copy of any law will protect you from being harassed by a police officer?

My hand is raised because I have paid copies of 1122,1125, and 1127.

If you showed the policeman your NAR card and a copy of the NAR MRSC, I think the poiliceman would soon come to the conclusion that Model Rocketry is probably ok.

I hope you're being sarcastic because I really can't imagine anybody being impressed when I whip out my NAR card.

But the NFPA and the NAR was not satified with all of that Exemeption: they still forced NFPA 1122 upon the states because it would benefit the NFPA and the NAR: but not the Consumer.

I'm pretty sure that in Mass. 1122 was "forced" on us by Estes because that's how we found out. Years before the NAR and local sections got the permit requirement removed but it was a while before 1122 was adpoted. Trust me, in a state like Mass. you're much better off with a law that tells you that you can do something than depending on an exemption that can go away at the whim of a local official. I'll give you an example. You probably know Chris Tavares. He was involved in getting permits eliminated in Mass. Around 1994 when we found the field that we now use the fire chief told him we needed a permit. I was willing to sign anything to get that field but he told the chief we didn't need a permit and that he should go look up the law. The chief did and we got the okay.

The typical model rocket consumer does not know that the NFPA even exists nor that the a NFPA FIRECODE regulates their hobby. But the typical model rocket consumer is introduced to the NAR by its MRSC that Estes includes in all of its model rocket packages and most of its kits(or at least it used to).

I don't get your point. I'm sure that most of my customers and quite a few plumbers don't know that the NFPA exists or that the Mass. Fuel Gas code is an NFPA code. All of the equipment I install comes with reasonably detailed instructions that are often excerpts from the NFPA code but they always tell the consumer to follow any local codes. I don't see the problem with having instructions like the safety code and more detailed rules that back them up.

 

[falingtrea]

One thing I haven't seen yet in this thread is proof that the NFPA codes are or have been detrimental to the rocketry hobby. Just because some states don't use it does not mean the code is useless. And I wonder how many of those exemptions you mentioned would have been a lot more difficult to obtain with out the existence of the NFPA code? The issues with auto adoption have nothing to do with the validity of the NFPA 1122/1125/1127 code itself.

 

[2muchstuff]

2muchstuff contacted me last night and we had a lengthy discussion on this topic. I think most of the issues have been identified and have either been mitigated or corrective actions identified.

I'm glad it sounds like you've worked things out, but it wasn't me you talked to. I don't know who you talked to, but communication is good.

As to who I am, what does that matter? I'm a member of NAR and TRA, a long time flier, involved in my local club, and pretty much just an average rocketeer. I don't make motors or kits, or have any business interests in the hobby. I just try to have fun, help others with rocketry, and do what I can to advance interest in the hobby.

As long as my posts are factual and well reasoned, who I am should make no difference. I'm not making inflammatory statements or personal attacks. I doubt that anyone posting would know who I am, so using my name would add no more validity to my posts than their own 'internal' reasoning.

I do sincerely appreciate the responses that everyone has made. It does give me a sense that those in charge are paying attention and do take these matters seriously. The fact that Bob K spent so much time replying to my post says that I raised some important concerns. I'll have to reread the posts and integrate all the info.

Thanks again everyone,


tms

 

[billspad]

As long as my posts are factual and well reasoned, who I am should make no difference. I'm not making inflammatory statements or personal attacks.

You don't think accusing the NAR of ignoring a motor maker is inflammatory? You might want to check with that motor maker and get the full story.

If you want to claim to have the facts then you should have the responsibility to use your real name.

 

[2muchstuff]

You don't think accusing the NAR of ignoring a motor maker is inflammatory? You might want to check with that motor maker and get the full story.

I just posted the facts as I heard them. I have no reason to doubt the veracity the manufacturer. If you find the facts inflammatory, that's not my intention.

John Lyngdal certainly seems to corroborate my 'story', although I think he has me confused with the maker that contacted him. I have no business interests in rocketry.

To quote John directly: "I think most of the issues have been identified and have either been mitigated or corrective actions identified." Sounds to me like a problem existed. I had nothing to do with the maker contacting John, but I'm glad he did.

I sincerely appreciate John posting the S&T contact info and the link to the updated procedures. As a NAR member, I would hope that all such policies are made available to members in an open and timely manner.

I also appreciate all those who were able to look to the content of my posts and not just my sig. It's nice to know that I don't have to be anyone special to be taken seriously.

Thanks,


tms

 

[bobkrech]

TMS

For confidentiality reasons I won't go into who the manufacturer is, however he was e-mailed a copy of the new manual along with all the other manufacturers. Unfortunately, the manual got caught in his spam filter which by his own admission is set too tight, and he didn't check the filtered mail.

AS I understand it, the manufacturer then attempted to contact S&T via the NAR website during the period when our webhost was changing servers and his e-mail was lost. Unfortunately he didn't think to contact Jack, John, Bill, or myself directly as we all have exchanged e-mails and phone calls in the past concerning prior certifications and we would have resolved the problem immediately weeks ago.

Then he sent a certified letter or two to NAR headquarters which did niot get to S&T due a family emergency that caused the NAR office to be closed for several days.

An unfortunate set of coincidences, however once S&T became aware of the problem, it was rectified in a few hours.

Bob

 

[SecretSquirrel]

TMS

For confidentiality reasons I won't go into who the manufacturer is, however he was e-mailed a copy of the new manual along with all the other manufacturers. Unfortunately, the manual got caught in his spam filter which by his own admission is set too tight, and he didn't check the filtered mail.

AS I understand it, the manufacturer then attempted to contact S&T via the NAR website during the period when our webhost was changing servers and his e-mail was lost. Unfortunately he didn't think to contact Jack, John, Bill, or myself directly as we all have exchanged e-mails and phone calls in the past concerning prior certifications and we would have resolved the problem immediately weeks ago.

Then he sent a certified letter or two to NAR headquarters which did niot get to S&T due a family emergency that caused the NAR office to be closed for several days.

An unfortunate set of coincidences, however once S&T became aware of the problem, it was rectified in a few hours.

Bob

By the information I have, this sequence of events is incorrect. The certified letters were sent long before the recent email of the policy to manufacturers.

Ok, maybe his spam filter was too high, and some of my emails to him have been caught in it, but I think the letters should have been answered. To send a request for information way back in September and just now get a reply doesn't seem timely at all. I would think that once the family emergency was resolved, the letters would still be at HQ waiting to be answered. I also think that 6 months is far too long to have to wait for a reply.

Dealing with NAR HQ myself, it seems timely responses are not the norm. We at DARS were supposed to get insurance certificates last April when we renewed our charter. After months of emails to NAR HQ, none of which were answered, several voice mails which were also unanswered and postings to the NAR Sections list we finally got the certificates this January. This happened only because I went directly to the insurance carried, which I had been asked not to do, but it was the only way to resolve the issue.

We had a similar experience in 2005 and it took months to get the certificates.

Perhaps 'ignored' is not the correct way to describe the problem outlined by tms, but one can get the feeling of being ignored and I can certainly relate to it.

 

[bobkrech]

Don

If that is indeed the case, then I am absolutely dumbfounded why Jack, John, Bill or myself was not contacted directly back then. Our e-mail addresses, adresses and phone numbers are public knowledge, and we all know him. Additionally there is a separate private S&T mailing group for every motor manufacturer to contact S&T, and as far as I know this group list was not contacted.

Most simple e-mails to S&T are replied to in a few hours, and almost all within a day or so if a concensus is required, however if someones spam fiter is set to tight, the original sender may be unaware of the reply and think he's being ignored.

Bob

 

[SecretSquirrel]

Don

If that is indeed the case, then I am absolutely dumbfounded why Jack, John, Bill or myself was not contacted directly back then. Our e-mail addresses, adresses and phone numbers are public knowledge, and we all know him. Additionally there is a separate private S&T mailing group for every motor manufacturer to contact S&T, and as far as I know this group list was not contacted.

Most simple e-mails to S&T are replied to in a few hours, and almost all within a day or so if a concensus is required, however if someones spam fiter is set to tight, the original sender may be unaware of the reply and think he's being ignored.

Bob

Bob,

Let me first say that I'm not directly involved in the events being discussed. I do however know about them in some detail.

I would also like to say I personally know both the manufacturer in question and tms. I do not have their permission to name them, so I won't. I will say that they are both honest and upright members of NAR. I have never known either of them to give me false or misleading information in any way.

Yes, there are several ways to contact NAR. One of them is though the U.S. Mail at the address listed on the NAR web site, and this was the method chosen. Under the circumstances and nature of the request, I believe it was a proper method of contact.

At some point previous to September 2007 Ted Cochran, NAR Board member, posted in an online rocketry forum that the Board agreed to certain changes which were applied in recent certification testing.

This particular manufacturer requested, in writing, on two separate occasions a copy of the revised testing policy or a copy of the board resolution or a copy of the Board Minutes relating to this change. It is my feeling that a request of that nature should properly go through NAR HQ. If this is incorrect, perhaps you could outline the proper contact channel.

Regardless of the number of board and S&T members who list email address, it still bothers me that a written request by mail was not properly processed, not once but twice.

Standard mail has been used in business correspondence for centuries. I'm sorry, but I don't think one should have to try every method know to contact NAR in hopes of striking the one that NAR choses to use. If requests by mail are improper, NAR should state this and possibly remove the mailing address from the web site because people may try and use it if it's there.

 

[billspad]

I also appreciate all those who were able to look to the content of my posts and not just my sig. It's nice to know that I don't have to be anyone special to be taken seriously.

I never said you had to be someone special to be taken seriously. You just have to be someone.

I guess times are changing because the way I was brought up if you weren't proud enough to put your name on something you didn't make it public.

Anonymous posting of second and third hand information is what made RMR the irrelevant forum it is today.

 

[boris katan]

I never said you had to be someone special to be taken seriously. You just have to be someone.

I guess times are changing because the way I was brought up if you weren't proud enough to put your name on something you didn't make it public.

Anonymous posting of second and third hand information is what made RMR the irrelevant forum it is today.

I agree 100%.

It is unfortunate that some choose to complain from behind a curtain.

Hidden identities and vague complaints are impossible to take seriously.

 

[Johnly]

Guys,

Remember the game of telephone that we played as children, where a person started a message, and it was told and retold by people in a circle before looping back to the originator of the message. I think there could be some of that occurring in this discussion. I've have had another phone call from the manufacturer, and I've committed to him to get to the bottom of the missing messages. I have been able to deliver him an electronic copy of the documents, so that issue has been addressed.

Each motor manufacturer has a private e-mail contact point to NAR S&T, and this system of communication has been very robust up until now. Clearly it's not perfect, for one reason or another.

I'm sure that we can bring these issues to closure, but I'd like to request that this be performed in private.

John

 

[2muchstuff]

I'm sure that we can bring these issues to closure, but I'd like to request that this be performed in private.

I want to state that my posts are my own and not done at the behest or in cooperation with any other member (or non-member) of TRF. I would like to let this matter rest, but I feel compelled to respond to several posts that call my veracity into question.

I have spoken directly with the manufacturer involved, so there is no 'second or third hand' information being posted. I am accused in earlier posts (#26, #41, #47) by bobkrech and billspad of not having my story straight, or posting inaccurate information, yet bobkrech's post #43 is a timetable of events that could not have happened, and he should have known it. If you read post #28, SecretSquirrel mentions the certified letters were sent 30 days apart, and at least one was signed for by Marie. If bobkrech had read that post, he would have known that his version of events was not possible. When his erroneous sequence is called to his attention, he makes no apology or explanation for it. Rather, he takes the maker to task for not trying yet again to contact specific individuals, rather than NAR headquarters (#45).

On the other hand, Johnly seems to have stepped up to the plate, and from his posts (#35, #49) is working to figure out what happened and to prevent it from happening again, regardless of where the fault lies. We have enough issues with this hobby and the last thing we need is for any vendor (or club) to have trouble getting information to or from NAR. Trip Barber (as reported by billspad in #31) asks to get to the bottom of it. That's a very positive sign that some at NAR are interested in figuring out what happened.

boris katan wrote earlier (#48):

Hidden identities and vague complaints are impossible to take seriously

but clearly, my 'complaints' were not vague, and have been taken seriously by those involved. If it bothers you that I post anonymously, ignore my posts.

I agree that the remainder of this matter should be handled in private by the parties involved. I regret making the post here in the first place. I apologize to the manufacturer for involving them without their knowledge or permission, and to NAR HQ for implying any malevolence on their part. And finally, to shockwaveriderz for derailing his NFPA discussion.

Thanks to all who have obviously spent a great deal of time on this topic, whether or not you agree with my posts. In the end, I assume we all have the same goals in mind: promote our hobby, have fun, be safe, and fly rockets.


tms

ps: I'm done posting to this thread. If I feel a need to reply to any new posts made to this thread, I'll respond only via PM. I see no need to drag this out any further in public.

 

[Jeremy Lundy]

Yes, the piont is that the end result will make more people decide to not fyl model rockets because of the percieved mountain of regulations.
Guys its got to be simple. Please remember there are people out there who each year try to get involved in this activity and yet get "scared" out of it because no one really knows what the hell the rules are"

 

[GuyNoir]

Trip Barber (as reported by billspad in #31) asks to get to the bottom of it.

I suspect not.

Try a different name.

 

[billspad]

I suspect not.

Try a different name.

I thought there had been a coup!

 

[Ted Cochran]

...I want the TRF community to notice that in all of this nobody from the NAR has directed or indirectly even bothered to answer my queries.

Ted played the "fear" card: If it wasn't for NFPA 1122 the jails would be full of innocent model rocketeers

Seems like there have been four or five NAR people in here trying to answer your questions. If you choose to characterize that as playing cards, then we're not having a dialog.

If you in addition choose to mischaracterize what has been said, then the discussion has no chance of ever being constructive.

I'm happy to keep trying to understand your position, but not in the face of this sort of thing.

 

[2muchstuff]

Try a different name.

In my effort to get my facts straight by quoting the actual posts, I somehow misquoted the name of the NAR president. A pretty dumb mistake on my part. I apologize to both parties involved. I said Trip Barber when I meant to say Mark Bundick.


tms

 

[GuyNoir]

A pretty dumb mistake on my part.

Like most industrial accidents, what I see here is a whole series of small but dumb mistakes that led to some "crisis" and apparently bad feelings:

- an overly aggressive spam filter
- lack of direct contact between a manufacturer and S&T
- misunderstanding of NAR HQ operations
(feel free to add to the list)

There are several things NAR members and others can do if they want to make things work better.

The bulk of the NAR's work is done by dedicated volunteers who are human beings who occasionally make mistakes. As I pointed out in my NARCON talk "Life in the NAR's Oval Office" last week, many of those committees are a committee of one. And the job of NAR HQ is to do just that, take care of the basic membership services. Marie is not some sort of super-NAR member who knows what's going on in volunteer committees or the details of their operation. That's my job.

So, here's some suggestions given the job of HQ and time crunched volunteers:

(a) Don't post; ask.

As part of that same talk, I listed the approximately 25 things I'd worked on since January 1, not including the development and execution of 2 major member / non-member surveys and the Board meeting organization. I don't need (though I appreciate it) member thanks for that work, but it points out many NAR volunteers are time crunched.

When you post, you're taking a chance that the right person will see your question or comment. When you mail it to them, you can read receipt the message and know it got where it needed to get.

Can't figure out who to call? Don't waste your time and money sending certified letters to NAR HQ. "[email protected]" will be more than happy to connect you to the right spot.

(b) Find an administrative task you love, then volunteer for the NAR committee that takes on that kind of work.

When I first chose to volunteer for NAR work, I was an active NAR competition flyer. As part of the old Leader Administrative Council, we developed an NAR Competition Handbook that was distributed to all NAR members. I was happy to do the work even though it took away from my building and flying time because I thought it would benefit other fliers.

NAR members interested in improving the NAR's work need to find in their hearts those things that matter, then get involved. You don't need my permission or the NAR Board's permission to do that. Just contact the appropriate committee chairman and ask how you can help.

 

[SecretSquirrel]

- an overly aggressive spam filter

Take that one off the list. There was no message in the spam filter. The latest theory is that there was a problem with the NAR server.

When Johnly sent a message from that server, it was not received. The same message from another computer went through.

Can't figure out who to call? Don't waste your time and money sending certified letters to NAR HQ. "[email protected]" will be more than happy to connect you to the right spot.

Been there, done that. I won't comment further.


It seems odd that an inquiry sent to HQ can't be routed to the proper person for answer or sent to you to be forwarded to the committee but I guess that's just the way it is.

 

[2muchstuff]

Can't figure out who to call? Don't waste your time and money sending certified letters to NAR HQ. "[email protected]" will be more than happy to connect you to the right spot.

Since you state it's a series of 'dumb mistakes', I have to ask:,

Was it a dumb mistake for NAR HQ to ignore two certified letters? Or was it done deliberately?

Is the US mail no longer an acceptable form of communication for NAR?

It really bothers me that you seem to place all the blame elsewhere. Could it be possible that some of the 'dumb mistakes' occurred with NAR? SecretSquirrel mentions that the NAR mail server may have an issue. Could that be one of the 'dumb mistakes'?

I await your reply,


tms

 

[billspad]

Just to make this perfectly clear, there were two unrelated events.

The first was the certified letter(s) requesting a document that was and is available to everyone on the NAR website.

The second event was a copy of the Standards and Testing Procedures that got lost in the email. It was sent as a courtesy to the manufacturers a couple of weeks before it was made available to the general public. That two weeks represents the time between when it was completed and when it was officially approved by the NAR Board. The manufacturer in question new that the Procedures were due to be approved at the Board meeting.

 

[SecretSquirrel]

The first was the certified letter(s) requesting a document that was and is available to everyone on the NAR website.

It's a shame that couldn't have been pointed out to the person requesting the information several months ago.

Reading the NAR Sections list over the past few years, the NAR site is infamous for two things:
1) Being out of date
2) Being hard to use (difficult to find the info you are looking for)

If one were unable to find the information, he or she might be compelled to ask. The inquiry was sent to NAR Headquarters.

Headquarters - "A center of operations or administration".

By that definition, I wouldn't expect Marie to be a "super-NAR member who knows what's going on in volunteer committees or the details of their operation". I would expect that as a center of operations, she would forward the inquiry to the proper person.

By the previous post by Mr. Bundick, NAR HQ is not really an HQ but simply an office for new and renewing memberships. It seems Mr. Bundick really performs the function of HQ. Maybe the address on the NAR site should be changed.

As the request was for copies of NAR Board Minutes or NAR Resolutions I doubt that emailing anyone on the S&T committee would have done any good. I would have expected the members of that committee to basically say they aren't in the business of distributing those records.

Here is another thing I know. I know that if you send a similar request to Tripoli Headquarters, asking for the same information and by certified mail, you will have a very different experience. The person running Tripoli HQ will send you a prompt, professional and courteous reply informing you that your inquiry has been received. It will further state to whom the request is being forwarded for an answer. That reply will also get to you before the signature confirmation card from your original letter.

After reading this thread, if I were a motor maker I wonder which organization I would want to work with to certify my product.

As a NAR member, I'm disturbed by this thread. A lot of effort has been made to place the blame back on the person who made the inquiry, more effort than it would have taken to answer the original question. It wasn't asked of the right person, or in the right way, or at the right time or he should have known already, or he should have looked it up himself. No one has bothered to explain why two written inquiries went unanswered.

I would think that as a hobby organization NAR would want more product on the market. That NAR would try to lower the barriers. Not to blindly certify every motor, or bad motors, but to make the certification process as painless as possible.

I'm deeply disturbed and saddened that a simple request for information could result in this conversation.