The 'CATO Chronicles' (was TRA Sucker)

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

(Note: Thread name changed)

PART 30:

More detailed disclosure concerning developments from the BoD:
-------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter is the last I send to Will until April 1994. This
is a followup (to the committee) two days after Rogers called me (as has
been mentioned previously). I explain to Will the conversation with
Rogers (in summary) and my reasons for my letter to Rogers of 12/9/93 (a
'bcc' was enclosed to Will on this). As can be seen, I was beginning to
see that some 'political compromise' was being put forth by Rogers on
this - which was improper, in my mind - since we were pretty much
'innocent victims' of this. The reader will note that I don't actually
show any awareness that this 'searching' for compromise' by Rogers is,
indeed, a way to protect his 'buddy' (Kelly) - as became pretty clear in
New Orleans. Notice also, that I am speculating that Rogers will call
me back after receiving my 12/9 letter - which he didn't. There could
be some conclusions drawn by that (it will become PATENTLY clear in New
Orleans when Rogers brings up this letter). I just didn't see it at the
time. One other thing that is ascertainable is that I am *still* under
the (somewhat false) impression that Kelly is just 'another voice at the
table' - and that the rest of the BoD's impression of Kelly will go down
due to his childish act of blabbing. As much as anything, I was giving
the rest of the BoD credit (that they didn't deserve) to actually 'reign
Kelly in' and *make* him behave. Note, also, that I make statements of
just allowing this to 'die within the BoD' - which was precisely how I
felt about it - as, again, I was under the impression that the BoD was
more honorable than they turned out to be.

The most important mandate that predicated this letter to Will surfaces
towards the end of the letter - in that I am asking the committee to
stand behind me on faith - and feel some pretty strong anger at Kelly
for placing the restriction on my NOT being able to share his 11/22/93
letter with the team. I advise Will that, after New Orleans, I will
fully apprise the committee of all the situation. This I did NOT do -
not for any reasons of confidentiality - just that I decided to let the
team know if they wanted to know *anything* about this, all they had to
do was ask and I would provide. They were content to let me handle the
situation and did not ask.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302
10 December 1993
* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

Mr. Will Meyerriecks
702 Leisure Ave.
Tampa, FL 33613-1835

Re: More on this 'non-issue' with the Board

Will:

I received a call the other nite (12/8) from Chuck Rogers re: this thing
of Bruce and his mouth. He admitted that Bruce should have kept his
mouth shut and that the Board's position was weakened because he didn't.
(Boy, *that* was a sage comment!!) As I am sure you are not surprised,
he was trying to find a 'simple' solution to this. As would also not
come as a surprise, this 'simple' solution typically overlooks several
facts and disregards *who* may get hurt in it.

I am referring specifically here to Chuck's summary in this
conversation. Basically stated, he said, "Keep the Board informed /
remove the copyright notice on the AML". I told him I didn't consider
decisions I make as 'chiseled in stone' (reference here specifically the
copyright on the AML) - and if that is what the Board wants, OK (I still
think there is no reason to make an issue over NOT having a copyright -
enough on that).

The real 'rub' on this conversation came after we hung up and I started
thinking about this thing of 'keeping the Board informed'. I (as I am
sure you, too) feel that is what we have *always* been doing. The
policy decision I made on not announcing our test dates and releasing
'problematic' test results came only AFTER it was *demonstrated* that
the Board (collectively) could not responsibly handle this information.
If this topic came up in January in New Orleans (which I am sure it
will), then if Chuck makes the similar request (keep us informed) and I
answer **even with a simple "OK"** , it implies a 'change in position'
on my part, fur-ther implying that I (*or* we) were *not* doing that in
the past. I cannot accept that. If the minutes were to show the Board
request and my response thusly, then it could raise doubt within the
membership that we may have been doing something unprofessional or
'shady' before this January Board request was brought up. This would
damage not only *my* reputation but also this committee.

I WILL NOT LET THIS HAPPEN! When I accepted this position at LDRS in
August, I considered it *implicit* that the Board would be informed.
(It is obvious, now, that the exact degree of that *broad* statement
must be reviewed.) It was not stated explicitly to me then, and was not
really necessary. However, it is MOST INAPPROPRIATE at *this* time for
this topic to come up. We (ALL of us) have conducted ourselves in a
**most professional** manner and I am immensely proud of the team I have
below me. I will NOT accept even the IMPLICATION of impropriety on our
part relative to this present situation -- in *anything* that reaches
the membership -- or anywhere *else*, for that matter. Bruce was
'walking around with his pants down' on this one and tripped and fell
into a BIG hole. If *anybody* has to be sacrificed in this, IT WILL NOT
BE US.

This brings me to the point of this letter. I am more than convinced
that Chuck will call me again, once he gets my letter of response to our
phone call (enclosed a bcc: herewith). If (or more correctly *when*) he
does, I will advise him that there is no room for compromise on this
issue. Our (and my) reputation (with the Board *and* the membership) is
at stake here -- through no fault, omission, nor act of our own.
Bruce's 'loose lips' and, now, his letter to me (cc'd to the entire
Board) have forced this issue. There was no protocol that established
my right to 'selectively control' the information flow. However, there
was no protocol that *prohibited* my right, either. There was no policy
until realities **made it necessary** to have one -- in that regard I
feel I acted most appropriately.

I am **more than willing** for this thing to 'die quietly within the
Board', and will tell Chuck that next time we talk. But, as I said
earlier, there is no room for compromise as it concerns our reputation.
I have no desire for retribution nor apologies (as I stated in my
letter to Chuck) -- just simply an acknowledgment that we have a right
to make the judgments on this and **get on with our work**.

The deeper point in all this is: what will happen now? I am most
agonized that I cannot share Bruce's letter with you, as some of the
innuendo affects all of us and therefore you (the team) have a *right*
to know this. He, however, made the *explicit* statement in his closing
that I was not to share it with my committee. He has no right to
request this, but, I must comply for ONE REASON ONLY: if he asks me at
this January meeting if I have divulged the contents of his letter, I
can place my nose firmly to his and stare straight into his eyes and
state categorically that I haven't. By that, my position and argument
are only strengthened. For that reason, AND THAT ALONE, I will not be
able to share this with you. This entire team can rest TOTALLY assured
that, AFTER this January meeting, YOU WILL KNOW ALL.

I want the entire team to know that I have no desire to get involved in
any 'turf battles' with the Board (or any member of the Board). I am,
however, not surprised by these current developments - as I am sure you
are not either. In the three years I have been sitting in on the Board
meetings (since LDRS 10), I am further not surprised that Bruce and
Dennis are in 'center stage' on this. Bruce has been showing his ass
for quite a while and typically been exploiting Chuck's 'management
style' to run the Board the way he wants. The time has finally come for
that to stop -- and Bruce's premature and shallow actions have done
nothing but hand me the ammunition on a silver platter. I say again, I
am willing to let this thing die quietly -- his damaged credibility with
the Board is a foregone conclusion at this point. He cannot escape it
-- every time he even squirms, he loads another bullet in the gun. But,
I very much want the entire team to know that, 'if he snaps the ball,
then we WILL run the play'.

I have considered it my **prime responsibility** to 'insulate' and
'deal' with these outside matters and shield the team from this -- that
is *implicit* in my position as Chairman. I know most of you would just
as soon not involve yourself in any way with the politics of this
organization -- hell, I don't want to either. But the 'truth' demands
that I do in this case. In so doing, I commit the entire team and am
most aware of that awesome responsibility. It is unfair that the team
somewhat gets drawn into this when they cannot see the whole picture
(access to Bruce's letter). Due to that fact, it will require that you
make a commitment to stand behind me 'on faith'. I *never* had any
intention of asking you to do that -- which only adds to my ire with
Bruce's irresponsibil-ity. I WANT THIS ENTIRE TEAM TO KNOW THAT EVERY
WORD I SPEAK AND EVERY SENTENCE I WRITE ARE DONE SO WITH FULL COGNIZANCE
OF THIS FAITH YOU ARE 'FORCED' TO PLACE IN ME. I pledge to use
appropriate judgment. I further pledge to never place you in this
position again.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr.

Will, I strongly encourage you to share this with the entire team at
your earliest convenience. (Not a 'panic' emergency meeting -- just next
time you all get together.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
File: WILL4.DOC - 12/10/93

Again, I provide stonger encouragement for Will to share this letter
with the team - for their insight and to advise them about my pledge to
never place them in a situation of having to back me on faith again. I
do not know if (again) Will did, indeed, share this with the team. Will
and I *did* talk after this letter and he assured me that the team was
behind me 100%.

-----------------

Next in part 31:

NOW we'll actually get to Bruce's response to my 'book' of 1/3/94 <g>

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 31:

The aftermath of my 3 January 1994 'book':
-----------------------------------------

Within a day or two from the mailing of the 22 page response to Kelly, I
contacted the local District Attorney's office and dropped by for a
visit. This was due almost totally to try to get some kind of 'legal
opinion' on this thing of a Director's liability (as expressed both by
Lamothe and Kelly). I was not concerned overly about my 'legal stance'
on the issue - but *did* want to find out exactly how much merit was in
Lamothe/Kelly's arguments. The individual I talked to was a Mr. Tony
Henderson - and in the introductories, I found out he was quite versed
in 'Non-Profit' corporations. The meeting was not very long, but I took
the time to brief Tony on the situation and the most important thing I
found out was:

"John, just *knowing* this kind of information INCREASES a
Director's liability - as they are exposed to action by
a commercial manufacturer if this manufacturer suffers
loss." (very close to an exact quote)

The next day I prepared a little 'brief' - with some of the documents
involved and a cover letter - dated 6 January 1994 and dropped them back
by the D.A.'s office - to check in again a week or so before leaving for
New Orleans. I did drop back by, but Tony was busy with other things at
that time and I elected to just drop it - I had taken up enough of his
time. Further, I really didn't need to discuss this anymore - I had
enough information to expose Lamothe/Kelly's arguments for what they
were - rationalizations.

I believe it was the following weekend (8-9 January) that I received a
telephone call from Dennis Wacker - TRA BoD member. Wacker opened with
the statement that he had just got through reading my letter and that he
was in agreement with my side of the issue and was in support of it. I
thanked Dennis for that - and that I was not trying to create a 'rift'
here - but there were false conclusions being reached in Kelly's letter
and I was not going to just sit by and let them stand. Dennis then told
me that he did not like Kelly's letter the instant that he finished it.
(in effect, telling me that he also saw the condescension in it that
*I* responded to) Wacker went on to say,

"Bruce has this history of 'speaking out' as though he is
speaking for the entire Board and there are some of us
that don't like it." (again, almost a direct quote)

There was not much more discussed in this call. I thanked Wacker for at
least taking the time to call me in support and we closed with "See you
in New Orleans."

Sometime during the following week (towards the end - around the
14-15th), I received Kelly's first response (there were two - 1 day
apart).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bruce E. Kelly, Member
Tripoli Board of Directors
PO Box 96
Orem, UT 84059-0096

John H. Cato, Jr., Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee
RFD 2, Box 58
Nicholls, GA 31554-9618

11 January 1994

John,

I am in receipt of your "document" dated 3 January 1994. You make many
good points, but I must wonder at what you have read into my letter.
Clearly, *this is* overkill because you have "looked beyond the mark." I
have read and re-read my November 22nd letter and am having a difficult
time reconciling the original to your response.

First of all, I am upset that you would even *imply* that I am upset
with the members of your committee. On the contrary, I am not. Not even
with one individual on your committee. If you have implied as much in
any way to them, I will expect you to apologize for it. My letter was
tempered in the beginning with the following:

"First of all, let me state that I think you are doing a
fantastic job with motor testing. This goes equally for
those in Florida performing the actual work of testing.
It is unfortunate that "thanks" will come way too seldom,
and sometimes only when there may be a problem. I must
confess that this is one of those times. I am writing you
to help prevent future problems which I see building up,
not only with the Tripoli Board, but some of our members
as well."

You will note that this even included you! Near the conclusion of my
letter, I penned the following:

"You took over being Chairman during an unfortunate contro-
versy involving the last one. It was not a smooth or a
clean transition, as is the case when an election is held.
You were given something which was forcibly removed from
another. **I can appreciate the need for some policy decisions
that you had to make.**"

Your letter does not even acknowledge that I could see your need for
making policy. Furthermore, your letter even implies that I felt you had
a dishonest motive for making such policies. I can see how you would
have this view base solely on my statements regarding the <manufacturer>
incident, but not with the reading of the letter as a whole. I further
state:

"Again, I am not opposed to some protocol for getting infor-
mation out, or keeping some information "in house." I am
opposed to a reactive policy based on what may or may not
have been a mistake."

and...

"Finally, I am not opposed at John Cato chairing the Motor
Testing Committee. I just do not want to see you involved
in avoidable controversies which will alienate you from
the very Board which approved you... You have done a lot
to restore the trust that was lost. The only advise that
I have for you right now is to include the Board in your
policy making decisions... **This is all we ask of you**."

Clearly, if I made any mistake in my letter, it was being reactive to
the <manufacturer> situation. It is just as clear, from these statements
I have quoted above, that you have reacted all the more. How could you
ever imply that I would think your motivations unjust? I was questioning
your judgement on certain issues, and that was all.

Perhaps my letter should have also been tempered with some quotes from
the By-laws [sic]. Perhaps your letter would have been different if you
had reviewed them as well. From page 15 of our *Handbook*, Article V,
Section 11, I quote the following:

"Duties (of the Board). The Board of Directors shall develop,
*adopt*, and *implement all* rules and regulations regarding
membership activities involving the acquisition, storage,
and use of rockets, *rocket motors*, and rocket components
and parts."

I will not insult you by looking up what *The American Heritage
Dictionary* defines as "all." Let's now drop down to Article VII,
Section 3c, *Safety and Motor Listing* for the following:

"The Committee shall develop and maintain a Safety Code **(Our
Safety Code was in fact developed by the Committee under the
direction of Gary Fillible as the founding Chair.)** for
Advanced, Non-professional rocketry. The Committee may
*recommend* to the Board such other Safety Codes as it deems
appropriate. The Committee shall develop and maintain a
rocket motor listing program for the purpose of actual
performance, reliability, and safety of commercially avail-
able solid-propellant rocket motors. The Committee shall
list those motors that meet the requirements of the program
but in no way certify or guarantee any motor or propellant
product in any manner."

I do not see, John, how you can say that, from the above, you did not
have any guidelines. First of all, the Board "SHALL" implement "ALL"
rules regarding rocket motors PERIOD. Secondly, the Motor Testing and
Listing Committee has laid out before it what its mission is. Further,
the Committee may "RECOMMEND" (to the Board) such other Safety Codes (or
policies) it deems appropriate. As I stated in my letter, **"This is all
we ask of you." There is nothing said of a Chairman of any Committee
implementing its own policies independent of the Board.**

I think that you would have found that, following these guidelines, you
would have been given 99% of what you wanted. We not only have to fix a
mess of MY causing, but set you straight as to what each of us is
*responsible* to do. You view this as a power struggle and mention this
several times. I view this as a point of "order," the first law of the
universe. It is because the Board **(now this is me taking
responsibility)** failed in its duty that we had this problem before
you. The lack of credibility that existed before ultimately was the
responsibility of EVERY Board member who allowed this to go on. By the
same token, it would be just as irresponsible to allow the pendulum to
swing as far to the other side. This is not about POWER but ORDER. **If
you read more or less into this you are mistaken.**

There are may [sic] points of your letter that I am tempted to respond
to, but what I have stated above answers most of it. I am not keeping
track of my page count, but I know this will be short. As I see it, you
allegiance to your Committee IS NOT misplaced. Nor is your allegiance to
Tripoli members or the Board. Rather, I feel your *order* for allegiance
is. According to the By-laws [sic], the Board sets policy - including
the protocol for dealing with manufacturers. If I overstepped my bounds
by divulging information, the Board will censure me at the meeting next
week. We will discuss among ourselves what our future policy might be.

As Chairman of the Committee, there are certain "distances" that you
should keep from the manufacturer. I will not discuss those here, but at
the meeting. The bottom line: You represent Tripoli *first*. Dealing
with the Tripoli Board is your FIRST concern AFTER you have dealt with
your Committee. Rest assured, the Board WILL give you the authority to
do your best as a volunteer. There is no default of responsibility which
makes you accountable to the membership. The By-laws [sic] further
state:

"Annual report of ALL Committees are due BEFORE THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS no later that thirty (30) days prior to the annual
meeting of the Board of Directors..." (VII:4, Caps mine)

There has been no attempt to bring politics into your Committee. If
anyone is doing so, it is you. I have kept this matter between myself
and the Board. Even after the closing paragraph in my letter warning you
against making this matter public, I must wonder from your statements if
you did. Is this a leak on your part, John? There is evidence that you
did - thus making it a matter of politics. My letter was directed to the
Board and yourself ONLY. It was to, as you put it, handle these matters
"in house." Be prepared to tell us at the Board meeting who you have
invited into this issue.

John, I do not think you callous, dumb, or any of the other descriptions
that you imply that I might have concerning you. In summary, I feel that
you have grossly read way too much into what I have said. Finally, it is
obvious that you did not make yourself familiar with the By-laws [sic]
concerning the Board's duties, the duties of your Committee or your
relationship to the Board.

Speaking of the Board, I did not CC my letter to you to undermine your
efforts before the rest of the Board. Since we (the Board) are working
well together, this is a common practice that we have enjoyed to keep
each other informed as to what we are doing, what our thoughts are and
how we feel about certain matters. This is just another example of how
you looked "beyond the mark." Let us both make a more concerted effort
to understand each other. As you have quoted John F. Kennedy, I would
like to point out that it is hard for a leader to be willing to follow
restrictive guidelines. The By-laws [sic] may be viewed by some as
restrictive, but they give *true* freedom to those with understanding.
It is this order which makes the things that are hard more palatable.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Bruce Kelly
cc: Board of Directors

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have not (to this date) ever rebutted this letter - so I will indulge
myself here in this posting. (no, it won't be 22 pages <g>)

(The reader should remember that, at this time (Jan '94), by buddy
Dwight (the 'bylaws whiz') was here at the house starting his field
research (noted previously) - and we discussed and reviewed this letter
from Kelly.)

1) Early on, Kelly makes mention about my 'implying' that he (Kelly)
was upset with my committee - and if I have implied as much in any way
to them, I am expected to apologize to the committee for it. Sorry,
guys, I don't see anything in the entire 22 pages that indicates such
implication - nor did I ever say anything to the committee concerning
Bruce's letter. They knew of it, but not of it's contents, other than a
very broad generalization that Kelly was upset about my 'silence
policy'. It is an impossibility for them NOT to know this. Being the
committee itself, they had to know of Kelly's leak and the policy I set
to counter that. They also knew I was incensed by the unprofessionalism
of this whole act by Lamothe/Kelly - but I would have NEVER had any
valid reason or argument to state that Kelly was upset with them. It
just doesn't make any sense at all.

Further, it was quite clear to most on the committee (as I stated in the
closing to my 1/3/94 letter) that the two individuals directly involved
and responsible were throwing the biggest tantrum *about* the policy -
even without any observations on my part to them.

2) 'unjust motivations' & 'questioning my judgment' (par. 9):

Well, it *was* the fact that he was 'questioning my judgment' that got
under my skin. Considering the fact that it was the BoD *he* was a part
of that let the TMT program get in such *dire straits*, I had all reason
to question HIS judgment for such dereliction of duty. He *does* admit
to that further down (par. 15), but, again - EXACTLY *WHAT* GROUNDS
would he have to question the performance and policies that may have
been put in place to assure the quality of the work performed by the
committee remained high - considering the record we had already
established. It was *this* fact that just flat ticked me off - had we
'struggled by' with the NFPA committee and just *barely* retained TRAs
credibility with them, I might could have understood the tone in his
letter. Had we 'sat on our butts' after Long Island and done very
little, I might could have understood. None of that was, indeed, the
facts in the matter. It is *this* point that I am perfectly within my
rights to classify his ENTIRE attitude as just *dripping* with
arrogance. Everything that was even 'unspoken' as far as the BoD
'goals' for the program (from Wichita at LDRS 12) had already been
accomplished seven weeks later when I left Long Island - and I read both
his 11/22 letter and this one (1/11) as nothing but 'nit-picking' and
micro-management. In summary of my viewpoint, "Stuff it, Kelly, and go
back to your cage."

3) The classic 'Kelly bylaw quoting' mode (par. 10-14):

Like folks have seen me state before, this man just LOVES to quote
bylaws. (and I'll give you 100:1 odds that he, equally, just HATES to
have them quoted back at him <g>). His first part about, "the Board
'SHALL' implement 'ALL' rules regarding rocket motors PERIOD."??
Misquote, Mr. Kelly. The bylaws (truthfully and ONLY) state that the
BoD shall do such as, "...regarding MEMBERSHIP *ACTIVITIES*..." (caps
mine) He can go grab his American Heritage dictionary and look up the
word "ALL" all day long and it won't change ONE IOTA the fact that what
he was really trying to do was 'twist' the words in his bylaws into
stretching his authority to include INTERNAL committee policies.
Completely bogus and 'reaching' to the extreme. Further that, "ALL....
PERIOD" sentence again just *drips* with arrogance (... again). The BoD
had only TWO things to concern themselves with at LDRS 12 when they
confirmed be as chairman - 1) Get the program turned around and running
again, and 2) FIX the "mammoth credibility problem" with the NFPA.
That's all. Exactly HOW I go about accomplishing that (provided I do
not violate law, the bylaws, or general ethical standards of truth) is
positively NONE of their business.

During some of this time after receiving this letter, Dwight and I
reviewed Robert's Rules concerning committees and their rights.
Consider the following:

"When a committee is appointed "with power," this
means with power to take all steps necessary to
carry out its instructions." (9th Ed, pg 480)

There is also some other words a few pages over that are germane to this
discussion:

"Committees of organized societies operate under
any applicable rules stated in the bylaws, the
parliamentary authority, special rules of order,
and standing rules adopted by the society. Com-
mittees may not adopt their own rules except as
authorized in the bylaws or in instructions given
to the committee." (pg 491)

In this case, Kelly (I'm sure) would argue his point. But, let's look
at TRAs bylaws again:

"The Committee SHALL DEVELOP and maintain a
rocket motor listing program..." (VII:3c:2nd sentence)

I am (as committee chair) charged with DEVELOPING a 'listing program'.
I cannot meet that requirement if I cannot set *internal* committee
policy (as this was). By that, I am, indeed, appointed 'with power'
(per RRoO (above)) to carry out my 'charge' as there was no explicit
limitation of that 'power' in TRA's bylaws. I suppose, also, it could
be a 'semantic debate' about the words 'rules' .vs. 'policies' - but I
will not waste the time here with such.

This next sentence (in par. 14) is what REALLY caught my eye back then
in Jan. '94:

"Further, the Committee may "RECOMMEND" (to the Board)
such other Safety Codes (or policies) it deems appropriate."

(for the uninitiated, the paranthetical comments are NOT (repeat NOT) in
TRAs bylaws).

The sentence Kelly is referring to here (from the bylaws) concerns
SAFETY CODES - of which the committee is charged with developing. I
would *most definitely* consider it COMPLETELY appropriate for the
committee to do nothing more than SUBMIT to the BoD whatever Safety Code
we might have developed. I MUST do that, as the bylaws DO state that
BoD are charged with adopting ALL rules concerning membership activities
(as stated previously). That little paranthetical 'addition' (i.e. "(or
policies)") is totally and completely a FIGMENT of his imagination.
Further still, which 'policies' is he talking about here??? 'Policies'
that affect the membership at large?? Internal committee 'policies'??
Well, if it were a membership 'affecting' policy, yes I would bow to the
BoD on that. However, this was NOT what he was talking about, nor is he
JUSTIFIED in talking about (and *interpreting*) the bylaw provision
noted herein - and I was perfectly aware of that. When I read that
sentence (with it's 'addition') I just chuckled to myself - and said,
"Thank God the bylaws cannot be changed so easily."

(Did anybody 'pick up' on something here as it concerns my understanding
about amendments to the bylaws???) That last quote indicates my
understanding of the ORIGINAL Article XI - as in concerns the fact that
amendments could ONLY be by a majority vote of the MEMBERSHIP. Dwight
pointed out to me just how 'bogus' this was and that Kelly had
absolutely NO grounds to 'amend' <g> the bylaws in this way. Any time I
would read a part of Kelly's letter where he was 'interpreting' his
powers and authority, Dwight would counter, "SHOW me in your bylaws
where that power and authority is granted." Most times, it wasn't
there. Over and over again, Dwight would say, "SHOW ME" Over and over
again, there was nothing to show. From that 'dissection' of Kelly's
letter, it was becoming painfully clear that the man was doing NOTHING
but rationalizing his authority - reaching WELL beyond what the bylaws
properly granted him - and for NO OTHER REASON but to justify his
*DESIRE* to have such authority. He was completely hanging out in thin
air in his attempts to 'put me in my place'. <g>

(I was getting pretty well 'primed' for the New Orleans meeting in about
a week <g>)

4) 'allegiance to the committee/BoD' (par. 16):

"Rather, I feel the *order* for allegiance is." (sent. 5)

<Yeah, Bruce, I'm not surprised in the least by your 'feelings' in this
matter'. Let's see, first there is Kelly, then God, then the President,
then the BoD, then the membership, then the committee, and, lastly, the
TRUTH. Did I miss anything here? No matter, I got your name at the top
and that is all that REALLY matters to you -- and ALL you were 'saying'
here.>

5) 'distances from manufacturers' (par. 17):

Why don't you ask Rosenfield or some of the other manufacturers just how
'firm' I was concerning adherence to NFPA 1127 standards. To save some
time, just ask Rosenfield - as he was the *only* one that would
sometimes request things that were 'skirting' the edge of those 1127
requirements - particularly as it concerned the delay time problems some
of his motors were having. Never had a problem with Dixon (or others).
'Distances'? This sounds to me like you are 'priming the pump' for
some things that arose in New Orleans (note to reader - that is EXACTLY
what happened - we'll get to it).

6) 'Annual Reports' (par. 18)

What the HELL has *this* got to do with the current issue under
consideration????? The dang Annual Report isn't DUE until next August
(7 months away). This is about as 'schizoid' as his 'justification' for
divulging failures to a dealer 'so I could add motors to the
list'?!?!?!? (has anybody stopped laughing about that yet? <g> - I
haven't <vbg>) Let's see... the reason the finishes on my rockets have
turned out so good is that the pavement in front of my house is macadam
- and the reason my Blazer gets about 20 mpg is because the sky is blue.
(readers, don't WORRY if you can't follow that logic - Bruce can and
I'm sure he'll explain it to you <ROFL>)

7) 'politics in the committee and leaks' (par. 19)

The reader should understand one thing about Kelly's 'internal
communications' and this paragraph is PRIME evidence of one of his
techniques - that of putting down words NOT to the recipient of the
letter - BUT to the *'cc' list*. He loves to speculate with questions -
in effect, raising doubts in the minds of the 'cc list' about the
individual his letter is addressed to - and, this technique is simply
the first stages of a 'discreditation' campaign. I have seen him use
the words, "I must wonder...." so many times I must assume he has that
phrase programmed into a macro on his word processor <g>. Based on that
experience, I *do* have one question for him, "Bruce, with all this
*intense* intellectual activity ('wondering') on your part, do you EVER
reach any *CONCLUSIONS*?????"

8) "As you have quoted John F. Kennedy, I would like to point out that
it is hard for a leader to be willing to follow restrictive guidelines."
(par 21)

I would imagine that you are speaking from MUCH first hand experience
here, Mr. Kelly. Your 'solution' is particulary imaginative (based off
of my observations from then (Jan. '94) until the present hour) - just
IGNORE those 'restrictive guidelines'. You have truly turned that into
an 'art form', to be sure.

-----------------

Next in part 32:

Kelly's 12 Jan. '94 letter and the trip to New Orleans...

-- john.

[Dangerous Dave]

On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 02:36:41 -0400, "John H. Cato, Jr."
<jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

>The 'CATO Chronicles'
>
>PART 31:
>
>The aftermath of my 3 January 1994 'book':
>-----------------------------------------
>

--snip--

> As you have quoted John F. Kennedy, I would
>like to point out that it is hard for a leader to be willing to follow
>restrictive guidelines. The By-laws [sic] may be viewed by some as
>restrictive, but they give *true* freedom to those with understanding.
>It is this order which makes the things that are hard more palatable.
>
>Sincerely,
>
> (signed)
>
>Bruce Kelly
>cc: Board of Directors
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wwwwwwooooooowwwww!!! Can't let little things like bylaws and rules
get in the way of those with "true understanding"? I'm convinced,
Bruce needs to run for president! He's just what the
democratic/socialist party needs. Ol' Slick has been too much of an
embarrassment and they need some new blood in office.

--snip--

><Yeah, Bruce, I'm not surprised in the least by your 'feelings' in this
>matter'. Let's see, first there is Kelly, then God, then the President,
>then the BoD, then the membership, then the committee, and, lastly, the
>TRUTH. Did I miss anything here? No matter, I got your name at the top
>and that is all that REALLY matters to you -- and ALL you were 'saying'
>here.>

Hey John, I have to hand it to you! Very accurate observation. There
is not a lot I can add.

--snip--

>8) "As you have quoted John F. Kennedy, I would like to point out that
>it is hard for a leader to be willing to follow restrictive guidelines."
>(par 21)
>
>I would imagine that you are speaking from MUCH first hand experience
>here, Mr. Kelly. Your 'solution' is particulary imaginative (based off
>of my observations from then (Jan. '94) until the present hour) - just
>IGNORE those 'restrictive guidelines'. You have truly turned that into
>an 'art form', to be sure.
>
>-----------------
>
>Next in part 32:
>
>Kelly's 12 Jan. '94 letter and the trip to New Orleans...
>
>-- john.
>

Don't forget, when you are God, you make the rules! Can you send me
the address so I can tithe?

Special Note to Kelly, Platt, Mobley: ===>

Don't even think about bombing my email account again. I'm putting my
two cents in because this is the truth and you are strangers to it.
And cut the phoney calls to my ISP, he's knows what you're pulling.
You may have Doug Pratt in your pocket but some people know BS when
they hear it.

http://www.ddave.com/ ftp://ftp.ddave.com/pub/ddave/

[Darrell D. Mobley]

Dangerous Dave wrote:

> Special Note to Kelly, Platt, Mobley: ===>
>
> Don't even think about bombing my email account again. I'm putting my
> two cents in because this is the truth and you are strangers to it.
> And cut the phoney calls to my ISP, he's knows what you're pulling.
> You may have Doug Pratt in your pocket but some people know BS when
> they hear it.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooo! From the master himself... ;-)

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 32:

Before we get into Bruce's letter of 1/12/93, we need to pause for a
second and take stock of where we stand at the moment. I have mentioned
previously that I had been requesting the old firing file records from
Fred Brennion from back in the fall - and that I had sent him a specific
request back on 11 Nov. '93 to that effect. In that particular request,
I made mention about getting these to me at his earliest convenience,
but not later than New Year's. Well, the earthquake that hit California
in these winter months (I don't remember exactly when) did hit Fred's
apartment and I had taken that into account and was understanding of the
mess that can cause to one's life - but the request for these records
had been in well before that event. At this hour (mid-Jan '94) those
records had not yet been received - nor had I seen any of these
'small-format' curves from those firing files of October '93 sent with
that 11/11/93 request (mentioned above). The reader should remember my
instructions to Brennion to provide ONE curve of EACH firing to the
manufacturer and to me - plus one COMPOSITE curve of each motor TYPE,
again to the manufacturer and to me. Like I said, I had seen nothing of
this as of mid-January '94.

Also, the TRA test stand (still, supposedly in the hands of Bill Wood -
former chair) had yet to be received in Florida. TMT had been,
effectively 'down' since 1 Nov. '93 - well over two months prior to the
current time (again, mid-Jan '94). As far as any backlog building up,
there were not that many - BUT there were some motors that could have
been fired and made available to the TRA membership - IF we had a stand
to use. The West Coast 'leaders' were aware of this. To be sure, some
additional 'negotiations' could have been undertaken to continue to use
the *personal* hardware of one of the team - but I was firm in that
enough was enough as far as 'wearing out our welcome' with using
somebody else's hardware when, indeed, the committee *did* have its own
hardware - just that it was 3000 miles from where it needed to be.

Prior to the trip to New Orleans for the mid-winter Board meeting, I had
started on a few 'agenda items' for this meeting. I had formulated TWO
'Miscellaneous' items lists - one that had some rebuttal to Kelly's
assertions in his letters - from 11/22/93 *and* these recent ones
arriving in response to my 1/3/94 letter. As I remember, it was
'version 2' (which had some of this 'rebuttal' edited out) that I handed
the BoD in New Orleans. We'll get to that as we get to the meeting.
One additional thing I did, based off of Kelly's 1/11/94 letter (in Part
31) was to come up with a 'negative/positive' list of Kelly's 11/22/93
letter - almost as a comical diversion - to respond to Kelly's remark's
in his 1/11 letter - basically counting up positive remarks .vs.
negative remarks. I tried *really hard* to give Kelly credit *wherever*
I could possibly find anything even remotely positive. I got 17
positive statements. I quit tabulating the negative remarks when I
passed 35. (Since this 11/22/93 letter is already part of the postings
here - any reader is welcome to come up with a listing of their own -
and may find a few more 'positive' ones that I missed - being directly
involved) However, the overwhelming tone of his letter *was* negative -
both in my view, that of one BoD member (that I was aware of - Wacker)
and in this somewhat 'objective' process of actually counting the
remarks and ranking as pos/neg.

At any rate...

What follows is Kelly's letter of 1/12/94 (written a day after the
previous letter) - done so due to another letter he received on the
afternoon of the 11th. I will take the liberty to rebut this 1/12
letter at the end. I am aware that, both here and previously, that my
rebuttal *does* have a undertone of some light sarcasm. Part of that is
due to rebutting this here in the present day (1996), which will include
my bias firmed up over two years since these events happened. I ask the
reader to indulge me in this - and, more important - look beyond that
'bias' to the points I am rebutting (on *both* of these letters) as the
points themselves *are* valid - sarcasm notwithstanding. There is some
interesting points in the dictionary under 'sarcastic' and, particularly
in the synonyms listed thereafter in my dictionary here before me -
particularly the word *Satirical* - to wit: "Satirical refers to
expression that seeks to expose wrong or folly to ridicule, often by
means of sarcasm or irony." Admittedly, we're talking 'ridicule' here.
However, we are also talking "to expose wrong or folly" - which does
not hold as great a negative connotation as 'ridicule' does - nor do I
feel it to be particularly an 'evil' act on my part to engage in such.
On to the letter...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bruce E. Kelly, Member
Tripoli Board of Directors
PO Box 96
Orem, UT 84059-0096

John H. Cato, Jr., Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee
RFD 2, Box 58
Nicholls, GA 31554-9618

12 January 1994

John,

I was just a couple of hours too hasty mailing my January 11th letter
yesterday. In the afternoon mail I was surprised to find a letter from
Dave Sutton, copies of which were also sent to you and the rest of the
Board. It is not my intent to discuss the subject matter here. However,
I will use his letter to illustrate further what I have expressed to you
in that January 11th letter.

Dave is properly bringing a proposal to the Board to create a new
Committee. Under the By-laws [sic], we will call this (for now) an
Advisory Committee. (Handbook, Article V:12) This Committee MAY be voted
by the Board to be a Standing Committee as this develops. After
introductory remarks, he states:

"I would like the following proposal to be considered at the
next Board meeting in January. With the Board's approval we
will start work immediately, some work has already been
started by a few members of the team. Also any further
direction that the Board would like to provide would also
be appreciated."

Key ingredients in this paragraph are the use and context of the words
*proposal*, *Board's approval*, **further direction that the Board would
like*, and *appreciated*. Here is an individual who has written a
classic (if not perfect) example of what is involved between Committees
and the Board. The third paragraph continues in this vein:

"If Board approval is granted we could give a presentation
at the Danville Board meeting in April. With Board approval
and further input we could have the manual completed and
Board approval by June, 1994. Nothing is written in stone.
These are ideas for direction."

The words "Board approval" are used three times, mentioning also the
possibility of "further input." He concludes this paragraph using words
that I and some of the Board would like to hear from you:

**"Nothing is written in stone. These are ideas for direction."**

[this line was, in addition to italics, also underlined -- jhc]

I do not know if Dave reviewed the By-laws [sic] prior to writing his
cover letter. If he did, that is to his credit. If he did not, it is all
the more to his credit for knowing his place as a concerned Tripoli
member and possible Chair on a new Committee. His humility is impressive
and his letter a masterpiece, in light of current controversy between
yourself and the Board. Don't get me wrong. I am also impressed by your
hard work. My last letter and this one should leave no doubt as to what
"the rub" truly is.

Without looking it up, I mean the use of the word "humility" to express
"willingness to learn, teachable, or open to suggestion." For example, I
am impressed by some of the comments you have made on CompuServe about
parachute deployment. Regardless of how I feel about your policies that
you have set into place without Board approval, I am still open for what
you have to say - even many of the points concerning motor testing. I am
hoping that you will have this attitude before the Board next week.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Bruce Kelly

cc: Tripoli Board

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'll spend a few minutes here with rebuttal to some of this letter (my
comments are as though I'm speaking directly to Bruce)...

1)

> "Dave is properly bringing a proposal to the Board to create a new > Committee." (par. 2)

That's just it, Bruce - 'creating a NEW committee' I would hope you
would not think it possible for some members of the association to go
out and create a committee *on their own*. Even *I* can figure that
out. But creating a *new* committee is a completely different animal
than a pre-existing Standing Committee setting internal policies for
itself. Wholly.

BTW, if this is to become a new Standing Committee - I believe that
would take an amendment to the bylaws and not just a 'Board vote'.

2)

> "Key ingredients in this paragraph are the use and context of the
> words *proposal*, *Board's approval*, **further direction that
> the Board would like*, and *appreciated*." (par. 4)

Actually, the ONE 'key ingredient' is, here again, the formation of a
NEW committee - which, it is obvious, *would* require BoD action.
Inasmuch as you classify this as a 'perfect' example of doing that, 'I
must wonder' <g> how many 'imperfect' examples there have been in
setting up new committees - how many 'committees' have *you* set up
without BoD approval, Bruce?

The 'key ingredient' in you throwing this back in my face is patent
illustration that *your* view is, again, more along the lines of
submission and worship.

3)

> "The words "Board approval" are used three times.." (par. 6)

Is this thing being 'graded' based on quantity of statements indicating
BoD 'respectfulness' ???

> "...mentioning also the possibility of "further input." " (par. 6)

Since it appears that 'further input' is something you consider
important, I am curious as to why you didn't seek 'further input' on
that TMT information you had before you 'blabbed' it back in October
1993.

4)

> "He concludes this paragraph using words that I and some of the
> Board would like to hear from you:

> **"Nothing is written in stone."**

I believe I stated exactly those words in TWO places in my letter of
1/3/94. I guess I needed to do it *three* times in order to get credit
for it, huh?

5)

> "...for knowing his place as a concerned Tripoli member.." (par.8)

I guess this is the crux of the matter. Question: Do you 'know *your*
place', Bruce? As some other BoD members relayed to me, it appeared
that, indeed, you didn't. I *knew* my place and what I had to do. I
just was having a progressively harder time of doing it with you looking
over my shoulder all the time while 'quoting bylaws'.

6)

> "His humility is impressive..." (par.8)

I don't believe *Dave's* humility is the issue here. It strikes me as
*exceedingly odd* that you, of all people, would appoint youself the
'definer' of the word 'humility' in light of your actions in early
October '93 - and your attempts to dodge just being a man and accepting
the responsibility for your actions without putting infinite
*conditions* on it - as witnessed by your writings and (most important)
*attitudes* expressed in those writings.

7)

> "...in light of current controversy between yourself
> and the Board." (par.8)

So, now this 'thing' has been escalated (obviously by you) into a
'controversy' between me and the entire Board??? In light of the
conversations I had with...

Rosenfield ("I (meaning you, Bruce) may have done something wrong,
BUT SO DID YOUUUU" <in a 4 year old voice>)

and

Rogers ("Well, Bruce's action *has* weakened the Board's position")

and

Kolb ("John, just take the 'no news is good news' approach")

and

Wacker ("I didn't like it the instant I finished with it."

- and - "Bruce has this history of 'speaking for the Board'")

and, coupled with the fact that I *STILL* only see one signature at the
bottom...

... I fear that you have an overactive *imagination*, Mr. Kelly.

8)

> "My last letter and this one should leave no doubt as to what
> "the rub" truly is." (par.8)

It sure didn't.

9)

> "Without looking it up, I mean the use of the word "humility" to
> express "willingness to learn, teachable, or open to suggestion." > (par.9)

VERY GOOD, Mr. Kelly! I'll give you a grade of 'A' *even without* you
having to say it three times.

10)

> "...policies that you have set into place without Board approval"
> (par.9)

Poor interpretation of the bylaws. Now, say it three times, "I cannot
make up bylaws as I go along, I cannot make up bylaws as I go along.."

11)

> "...I am still open for what you have to say." (par.9)

Thanks, I feel *sooo* much better now.

12)

> "I am hoping that you will have this attitude before the Board
> next week." (par.9)

Shall I speculate as to what would happen if, perchance, I didn't???

-----------------

Next in part 33:

Final preparations for New Orleans.

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <31FC56...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr."
<jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

> Also, the TRA test stand (still, supposedly in the hands of Bill Wood -
> former chair) had yet to be received in Florida.

Have you ever gotten everything from Bill Wood?

And did Fred Brennion ever deliver the pre-1993 curves to you?

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 33:

Clarifications and Corrections to Part 31:

Where I inserted a quote from Robert's Rules of Order (RRoO), as it
concerns the powers *normally* granted a committee:

"When a committee is appointed "with power," this
means with power to take all steps necessary to
carry out its instructions." (9th Ed, pg 480)

... the reader should understand that this '9th' edition was NOT the
edition that Dwight and I were referring to back in Jan '94. Dwight had
blue, paperback version of RRoO at that time (I think 7th Ed.) and it
stated things a little differently, in particular, it added a phrase
preceding the descripion noted above: "as is frequently done,..." (from
§52 - and the reader will see this quote in documents below in this
Part.)

A little further down there is (upon review) a confusing discussion that
needs clarification:

"That last quote indicates my understanding of the ORIGINAL
Article XI - as in concerns the fact that amendments could
ONLY be by a majority vote of the MEMBERSHIP. Dwight pointed
out to me just how 'bogus' this was and that Kelly had
absolutely NO grounds to 'amend' <g> the bylaws in this way."

What I was referring to here as it concerns Dwight's pointing out the
'bogusness' of 'this', the reader needs to understand that the word
"this" meant Kelly's 'addition' (or interpretation) to his quote of the
bylaws by adding the phrase "(or policies)". (readers should probabably
go back and reread the discussion on this part of Part 31). It does NOT
mean that Dwight was pointing out amendments to the bylaws being done my
the membership was 'bogus'.

Final Preparations for New Orleans:
----------------------------------

As far as getting 'prepared' for the New Orleans meeting, one thing that
I wanted to have was a sample or two of that 'dream format' thrust curve
(half page tabular at top, curve at bottom). I had been 'tinkering'
with that a little thru December and the early parts of January and got
the AeroTech J800 and K1100 plots put together into this format and was
bringing that with me to show to the Board in New Orleans.

The day before departure to New Orleans (19th Jan) I put together a
'Miscellaneous Issues' document of various and sundry Items that I
wanted to bring before the Board. I also drafted up a 'Real Issues'
document that discussed what I felt was the *real issues* as it
concerned Kelly's (mostly) and Lamothe's (minorly) 'tantrums'
surrounding the 'silence policy' (we will see both of these below).

On the 'Miscellaneous Issues' document, I actually had TWO versions -
'version 1' had an additional 10 items that concerned these more
'sensitive' things about the 'powers' of the BoD contrasted with the
'powers' of Committees (and their chairs). The reasons for having two
different versions was, as much as anything, a contingency. Based off
of what I found as the 'mood' of the Board there in New Orleans, I would
either hand out the more sensitive 'version 1' or the more benign
'version 2'. I will only include the longer 'version 1' herein and I
note on it what the item numbers were in 'version 2' (shown as:

" 14) <5> "

... where '14)' is the item number on 'v1' and '<5>' is on 'v2')

The first nine items on 'version 1' are those 'sensitive' issues and the
10th item added here was item 15).

The reason I feel it important to show this document in it's entirety
(it's not that long, anyway) is that it indicates (I feel) pretty
clearly that the 'problem' beginning to develop between me and Kelly was
NOT totally consuming my thoughts and actions. The reader will see that
there were plenty of other things that I was considering and working on
and aware of.

Since older TRA members know what the *main* controversy that erupted in
the spring of '94 between me and the TRA 'leadership' centered around
the amendment right of the members over the bylaws, (of which newer
members (and non-members) may not be completely aware), it should be
CLEARLY noted that I discovered the problem that caused the controversy
while I was *AT* the New Orleans meeting. I had ABSOLUTELY not the
FOGGIEST that these powers over the bylaws had changed (to the Board)
when I left Georgia heading for New Orleans - and was STILL under the
impression that the ORIGINAL Article XI (amendment only by majority of
the membership) was in place and functioning. The document below will
clearly illustrate that understanding I held, as of two days before the
New Orleans meetings.

The reader should note an 'additional' item 9) (version 2) near the end
of this document that was NOT included in the 'sensitive' version 1 -
there is a [comment] that flags this:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

19 January 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

TRIPOLI BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

21-23 January 1994 -- New Orleans, LA

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES for CONSIDERATION

1) POINT OF ORDER: If the President AND Vice President are to be
'ex officio' members of every committee (as I have been informed), a
CHANGE in the bylaws must be effected. The present wording only shows
the President to be thus. Since that is stated explicitly in the bylaws
(Art. VI, Sect. 5), it follows logically that it must also be explicitly
stated (by amendment) to the effect that the vice-president is similarly
empowered.

2) I have been advised by Mr. Dennis Lamothe (VP & Treas) that he
is (unofficially?) the 'Chief Operating Officer' of our organization -
as it pertains to 'internal' operations within the organization - and
this is some of his contention of his 'right' to be an 'ex officio'
member of all committees (as noted in 1 (above)). While this may be the
case, traditionally that position is held by the President. It is
possible that this was an 'appointment' by the President - so that he
can focus on the 'outside, Federal' side of Tripoli's operations, as was
Mr. Lamothe's description. However, as Chairman of the TMT committee, I
should be made formally aware of this (by direct communication from the
Secretary) - and not notified of it 'after the fact' by the parties
involved with this setup.

3) I remind the Board that *any* change to the bylaws (alteration,
amendment, repeal, or addition) must be by a *majority vote* of the
*membership* and only after proper procedure is followed (Article XI).
POINT OF ORDER: By that fact, the issue brought forth in item 1 (above)
is out of order. As another example, Item #3 in the minutes of the
Board meeting in Wichita, KS for Thurs. 8/12/93 - 1616 CDT (The Tripoli
Report, V4N4, Page 18) is also out of order - a motion cannot be made
(and a vote cannot be taken) to amend the bylaws by the Board of
Directors - it must come from the membership.

4) With the present situation, as it pertains to this committee and
its relationship with the Board, further clarification as to the exact
responsibility and authority of committees and their chairs should be
addressed by amendments to the bylaws, to wit:

5) Bruce Kelly, in his letter of 11 January 1994, makes reference
(pg. 2 - bottom) to Art. VII, Sect. 3(c) as to this committee's duties
and that this committee (from sentence 2) "may 'RECOMMEND' (to the
Board) such other Safety Codes (or policies) it deems appropriate." The
addition of the phrase "(or policies)" is in error - this is not a part
of the bylaws - as it is now written. This sentence relates back to the
first sentence in this subsection as it pertains to the development of
the Safety Code - not to any further action, authority, or
responsibility (nor to any implicit granting *or* limitation of power or
authority) that this committee may be empowered to perform. The TMT
committee is charged (by the 3rd sentence) with 'developing and
maintaining' the motor testing program - the use of the word 'develop'
implies that it is the committee that shall set in place whatever
policies it deems appropriate to accomplish this aim (this is in
accordance with **Robert's Rules of Order** - §52) - but this subsection
should be amended to spell this out explicitly.

6) The exact 'chain of command' on the actions and behavior of any
committee should be spelled out in the bylaws. It is stated (Art. VI,
Sect. 5 and Art. VII, Sect. 1) that it is the President that shall
*appoint all* committees and their chairs (with ratification by the
Board). That implies that the chair of the committee is responsible to
the President - but him only. This chair has considered bowing to a
consensus vote of the Board of Directors as a proper form of conduct -
but it can only be taken as a courtesy - as there is no explicit
requirement of that act in the bylaws.

7) The present issue of the relationship of the Board to this
committee and, specifically, the situation of access to confidential
information raises the question of possible litigious exposure of
members of this committee without any liability insurance coverage.
This point has been brought up to Mr. Dennis Lamothe in early January -
particularly as it concerns me as chairman. I have been advised by
legal counsel that any indemnification extended to this committee by the
Board should include *all* members of this committee.

8) If there is a "Policies and Procedures" document, reflecting
Board action or decisions, then it should be more publicly disseminated
to the membership. These 'day to day' operations of the Board can (and
do) have impact on the membership - and they should know about it. If
there is not such a document, then all previous 'policies and
procedures' should be gathered together and made into a document of this
type and distributed to the membership.

9) In light of the above items, I would recommend that the
President (or Board) establish a 'Special Committee' (Art. VII, Sect. 4)
entitled the 'Constitution and Bylaws Committee' to review our present
bylaws to remove the 'vagueness' and reliance on 'implication' in the
interpretation of our bylaws. The bylaws are a *living* document -
reflecting the way the Corporation actually works - and the realities of
how it *should* work - it should NOT be static - nor should it be vague.

10) <1> I have been getting 'feedback' from the Tripoli membership about
certification of motors and, particularly, the possibility (as I,
myself, have suggested) of having a 'Propulsion Only' class of
certification. This would apply to motors that failed to pass our
certification requirements SOLELY due to delay times that were 'out of
spec'. Inasmuch as the method by which we determine burnout of a rocket
motor can (and does) hinge on 'variable' criteria, and the resulting
'delay time' can be affected by that determination, it seems an
appropriate classification. Further, with the current technological
advances (timers, altimeters, etc) that are seeing increasing use by the
membership, utilizing the 'built-in' pyrotechnic delay train is being
relied on less and less. Further still is the issue of completely
'disabling' the built in delay for outboard motors in clusters (or
*every* motor, when electronics are used to affect recovery) make
'failing' a motor solely due it's delay accuracy an extreme measure, in
my *and* some members' eyes. A rocket motor that produces a viable and
appropriate 'thrust trace' on our test stand isn't automatically and
'unsafe' motor because it didn't 'eject' on time - the two are
unrelated. Listing these motors in a separate category after the
'regular' motors would provide increased flexibility and availability of
motors for the Tripoli membership. There IS incentive for the
manufacturers to 'correct' this problem, because by the very fact that a
motor doesn't achieve 'full' certification is clear evidence to the
membership what the 'problem' is with it - the delay time can't be
trusted. There *may* be possibilities for confusion by the membership -
but, if so, it is minor and would be cleared up by *appropriate* and
*complete* disclosure (by this committee) as to exactly what this class
of certification really is - 'you can't use motor X for deployment of
recovery - only propulsion.' Since the current mood of many RSO's in
our ranks are to address somewhat tighter 'control' of their job at a
launch - I can see no problem with adopting a certification class of
this type.

11) <2> Somewhat related to item 10 (above) is the issue of these 'long
burn' motors that (presently) fall within the purview of the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) and, more specifically, those
motors (or rocket vehicles) that have a total action time of 15 seconds
or more. There have been two (2) motors removed (or 'decertified') from
the past Tripoli AML due solely to this fact. Inasmuch as Tripoli
Sanctioned launch operations have been conducted in the past under
'waivers' from OCST regulation, as it applies here, I raise the point
that these two motors should be 'recertified' back onto the AML with the
explicit restriction that they can ONLY be used under the auspices of a
valid and current OCST waiver for burn time. In discussions with John
Baumfaulk (Tripoli Kansas), it appears there is work 'afoot' to get
broad based waivers (and possibly even revisions to the CFRs) to 'move'
this limit up to something more workable with current member activity in
this arena. That being the case, I submit that this 'special'
certification will be temporary - as it appears it will, in the not too
distant future, be moot.

12) <3> I have been contacted by various people (in our hobby and the
industry at large) about whether we would (or could) certify either
'liquid' or 'hybrid' motors. The specific case of the 'liquid' is a
hydrogen peroxide monopropellant type of motor - relatively simple from
the engineering standpoint. The 'hybrid' is already in development. I
bring this up merely to give the Board a 'heads up' as to what may be
'coming down the pike' in the future. It is something we are going to
have to address 'real soon now'.

13) <4> This Board has already been contacted by a Mr. Dave Sutton as to
establishing a 'Certified RSO' program. Since there has been talk in
the past (and our current Handbook also makes mention of this - Safety
Code, Sect. 3.6 - page 23), I want to advise the Board of my continuing
input into this effort *and* my wholehearted support for it. It is time
that we make it *real*.

14) <5> Related to item 13 (above), I want to state that the 'CRSO'
program would fit in very nicely with my desire (as TMT Chairman) in
establishing a 'Field Reporting Network' wherein the TMT Committee would
have in place a mechanism of getting good, *reliable* data as to 'field
performance' of motors - particularly as it applies getting reliability
data from the field. As I stated in my letter to Bruce Kelly on 3
January 1994, there is weaknesses in putting faith in data that is not
'qualified', but we at least need to think about addressing this issue.
I don't feel that I can take data 'phoned in' from just anybody as
anything more than simply 'interesting'. Addressing (in the CRSO
training program) some of the issue of 'qualifying' the data as to
'believable' would be appropriate in implementing this 'Network'. With
that in place, TMT (and Tripoli) could 'broaden their database' to begin
to address the 'reliability issue' (and I could, at least, have *some*
people out there that I could trust to provide 'good' data).

15) Related to item 14 (above), I raise the question as to whether
it is 'proper' to use the word 'reliability' in the description of TMT
duties in the bylaws (Art. VII, Sect. 3(c), 3rd Sentence). As mentioned
in my letter to Bruce Kelly of 3 January 1994, there is *no* statistical
significance to the data generated by this committee from our testing
program as it applies to 'reliability'. Only after several years of
data from the field (if the CRSO program mentioned above were to pass
and then only if the Field Reporting Network were established to
*rigorous* standards) could we begin to make even the most cursory
statement about 'reliability'. As a result, I feel it only proper that
the word 'reliability' be stricken from the by-laws as it pertains to
this committee until such time as it may make sense to put it back in.
The use of the term 'safety' could similarly be questioned - however, I
feel that our charge of developing the Safety Code could and should be
considered as addressing the 'safety' issue - in whatever small way.

16) <6> I have discussed with Michael Platt (of the Manufacturer's
Association) about the possibility of designing a "TMT Approved" logo to
be licensed to motor manufacturers (obviously 'for free') for use on
their motors that have been listed in the Tripoli AML. This would be
similar to the use of the NAR logo on NAR listed motors. This may be
nothing more than a 'marketing perk' for the manufacturers, but will
also lend credence to the continuing growth of TMT as a testing arm of
Tripoli. Mr. Platt indicated a positive response to this idea. It is
my feeling that we should explore the development of this.

17) <7> Relative to this committee's budgeted 'Telephone Expenses', I
would like to propose for consideration the expansion of our monthly
budget to $50.00 for reasons to be enumerated here: 1) This was
initially suggested to me by Rich Kuzma (of my committee) with the
argument that the majority of calls I must make as chairman must occur
during normal business hours (which incurs the highest rate structure).
Many other telephone communications of this organization can (and
sometimes must) occur during 'evening' or 'late night' hours at the
lower rate structure. 2) Now that I am 'signed on' with CompuServe,
Chuck Rogers felt it appropriate that Tripoli underwrite my expenses for
this, as it will be the primary mechanism of getting the positive
results of our testing program 'in the public domain' as rapidly as
possible. Doug Pratt (Sysop of ModelNet) has established for me a 'free
flag' wherein the normal 'extended services charges' for ModelNet are
waived. Since I am in the 'boonies' here in South Georgia, I must make
a long distance call to Brunswick, GA to reach a local gateway into the
network. Late night rates are approximately $6.00 per hour.
Summarizing, my charges for CompuServe access would be the $8.95 monthly
base charge plus the long distance charges mentioned above. I would
consider this expense to be covered *within* the $50.00 limit proposed
above. Further, due to the fact that there may be other issues that may
necessitate my access to CompuServe, I propose Tripoli underwriting a
maximum of 75% of the charges spelled out above - as a starting point
until I can get a better handle on exactly what 'division' of my time
on-line would be. I would further propose that my telephone budget be
established on an 'annual' basis instead of a 'monthly' basis ($50.00 x
12 = $600.00 per year). The reasons for this center on the fact that
some months could go over a monthly limit while others would fall under.
Having an annual budget would allow increased flexibility to our
operations and not in any way increase Tripoli's debt obligation - it
would be $600.00 maximum, regardless. I further propose that any unused
excess at the end of the year be divided equally between TMT's operating
funds and the Tripoli Legal Defense Fund. The committee would be
rewarded for watching their expenses by getting some small windfall at
the end of the year. Tripoli, itself, would also 'be rewarded' by
splitting that 'windfall' with us - to be placed in an area that would
need it the most - the Legal Fund. If the increase to $50.00 per month
is not acceptable, I would still prefer my present allowance be 'shifted
over' to the annual method for the reasons discussed immediately above.

18) <8> NAR has a policy wherein an established manufacturer can 'demo'
new motors at a sanc-tioned launch prior to their official approval. I
have talked with Gary Rosenfield about this a little and feel that it
might not be a bad idea for Tripoli to have a similar program. This is
how I see a 'possible scenario' on this: An established commercial
manufacturer can 'demo' a new motor design (prior to commercial
availability and TMT test) under the following conditions:

1) A maximum of FIVE (5) motors of any one designation can be
flown under this program.

2) There will be no time limit over which these 5 motors can
be demoed.

3) The manufacturer or a full time employee must actually
prepare the vehicle and conduct the launch.

4) The rocket vehicle used does not necessarily have to be
'from the manufacturer' - any Tripoli member present who
wants to 'donate' the use of his vehicle can do so.

5) A minimum of 30 days prior notice to the RSO/Launch Organizer,
the Tripoli Board, and the TMT committee shall be required.

6) Written approval for the launch shall be tendered by all
parties at least 7 days prior to the launch.

7) After the fifth flight, the manufacturer can elect to submit
the motor to TMT for testing or withdraw it - in all cases
NO further flight operations shall be allowed for this motor
after the fifth flight unless it is granted TMT approval by
successful static test.

[commment: the following item was part of 'version 2' ONLY - jhc]

<9> In accordance with the Tripoli bylaws (Article VII, Section
3(c), Sentence 4), I recommend that Tripoli, it's Board, and this
committee cease using the words 'certify', 'certified', and
'certification' as it pertains to any activity, results, or approval by
the Tripoli Motor Testing Committee. Those words are strong ones and
ones this committee will never be able to hon-estly make any statements
about. Our testing and approval program functions under a
statisti-cally insignificant amount of data. We should not expose
ourselves to the potential of ac-countability and responsibility
associated with it.

Respectfully Submitted,

John H. Cato, Jr. - Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To the best of my abilities to remember today (1996) I do NOT believe it
was the 'sensitive' 'version 1' of the above document that was handed to
the Board in New Orleans. I also am not completely sure what early
events there caused me to make the decision to keep the 'sensitive'
version 1 to myself and give the 'benign' version 2 to the Board. I say
this, as it was 'given' to the Board on Friday, the first day, as I
recall. This day was rather 'peaceful' and things didn't get 'critical'
until the second day, Saturday. However, I wouldn't have waited to
Saturday to give it out - and, thereby, knowing things were looking bad,
elect to keep the sensitive private. (Maybe you follow all that <g>).

What follows is the 'Real Issues' document (1 page long). Also, here, I
am, at best, about 50:50 on whether I gave this to the Board. I *think*
I did.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

19 January 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

THE 'REAL' ISSUES

This 'security leak' that occurred in September 1993 has ceased to be
the 'real issue'. The items below are what I see as the current issues
before this Board, as it relates to the resolution of this present
'problem'.

1) There is apparent confusion as to policies set *within* and
*for* the *committee* as contrasted with policies set for the Tripoli
*membership*. It is proper for the Board of Directors to effect policy
that concerns the membership. It is equally proper for committees to
effect policy as it pertains to their function and charge. In Bruce
Kelly's letter of 11 January 1994, he states (referring to the bylaws),

"There is nothing said of a Chairman of any Committee implementing its

own policies independent of the Board." I'm not so sure. Art. VII,
Sect. 3(c), 3rd. Sentence of our bylaws specifically state, "The
*Committee* shall *develop* and maintain a Rocket Motor Listing
Program..." It does *not* say, "The Committee shall develop and
maintain, subject to ratification by the Board..." (which, by the way,
*is* the wording used to refer to presidential appointments - Art. VII,
Sect. 1, 1st Sentence.) The one thing that *is* clear from the bylaws
is that there is *nothing* that *prohibits* it. The bylaws are what
governs. Nothing can be construed nor assumed by extrapolation. With
that as fact, we should, further, refer to Robert's Rules of Order
(§52), which makes reference, "..as is frequently done, to appoint the
committee 'with power,' which means with power to take all steps

necessary to carry out its instructions."

2) In the *absolute sense*, any unchecked dissemination of
preliminary information exposes the Tripoli Board to libel or slander.
Being Chairman of this committee, I most definitely (and there is
additional possibility that the entire committee) could become a party
to any litigation thus ensuing. Accordingly, I reserve as proper my
right to have control over this information. Proper protocol indicates
that any communication with this committee be addressed to it's
chairman. Further, it is within the chairman's prerogative to make the
judgment as to just how much of this 'preliminary' information can and
should be disseminated.

3) There is serious question as to what the Board could *do* with
information uncovered within this committee prior to any official
statement from the committee. Barring any 'official' statement about a
potential reliability problem (in this specific case), none of this
'preliminary' information from our testing is of use to the Board - you
cannot do anything with it. Due to the potential for damage (and
exposure to liability), this type of information should strictly be on a
'need to know' basis. Again, Robert's Rules of Order states (§52), "No
allusion can be made in the assembly to what has occurred during the
deliberations of the committee, unless it is by a REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE or by general consent." (caps mine)

4) The chairman of this committee is 'appointed' by the President
(Tripoli bylaws - Art. VI, Sect. 5 & Art. VII, Sect. 1). As stated, I
consider it proper to bow to a consensus of the Board of Directors
(provided that consensus is in accordance with the bylaws) - but,
ultimately, my 'boss' is the President. I cannot and will not answer to
NINE *individual* 'bosses' - nowhere in the Tripoli bylaws *nor* in
Robert's Rules of Order is any chairman of any committee (nor, for that
matter, the committee itself) accountable to any *individual* director -
only to the 'appointing assembly'.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reader will notice in the above documents a few changes in words
used. In my long 1/3/94 letter to Kelly, I used the word 'de facto' in
place of (as seen above) 'ex officio' as it concerns the President's
'membership' in the committee. This is just a result of further study
of RRoO and TRAs bylaws prior to New Orleans. The reader will also note
that I make mention about by 'ultimate' boss as being the President -
where some previous comments have indicated that I felt the President
did NOT have any overriding authority over either the Board NOR the TMT
Committee. The two 'viewpoints' are not completely mutually exclusive -
if you think about it for a moment. The bottom line is, in reality, I
never faltered nor waivered on my belief that I (most definitely) WOULD
bow to a consensus vote of the entire Board. The only reason that I
even spend time on this clarification here is that I have been accused
(both by implication in Kelly's writings and one or two 'abrasive' TRA
members) as though I was of the opinion that I was accountable to NO
ONE. That is simply not true - that thought *never* entered my head,
and I take *great* exception to such attitudes and viewpoints.

---------------
Next in part 34: New Orleans

-- john.

[Bob Kaplow]

In article <31FB0A...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net> writes:
> I believe it was the following weekend (8-9 January) that I received a
> telephone call from Dennis Wacker - TRA BoD member. Wacker opened with
> the statement that he had just got through reading my letter and that he
> was in agreement with my side of the issue and was in support of it. I
> thanked Dennis for that - and that I was not trying to create a 'rift'
> here - but there were false conclusions being reached in Kelly's letter
> and I was not going to just sit by and let them stand. Dennis then told
> me that he did not like Kelly's letter the instant that he finished it.
> (in effect, telling me that he also saw the condescension in it that
> *I* responded to) Wacker went on to say,
>
> "Bruce has this history of 'speaking out' as though he is
> speaking for the entire Board and there are some of us
> that don't like it." (again, almost a direct quote)

Well, I've certainly seen evidence of this first-hand.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Abort, Retry, Fail?"

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <31FDD2...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr."
<jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

> 11) <2> Somewhat related to item 10 (above) is the issue of these 'long
> burn' motors that (presently) fall within the purview of the Office of
> Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) and, more specifically, those
> motors (or rocket vehicles) that have a total action time of 15 seconds
> or more. There have been two (2) motors removed (or 'decertified') from
> the past Tripoli AML due solely to this fact. Inasmuch as Tripoli
> Sanctioned launch operations have been conducted in the past under
> 'waivers' from OCST regulation, as it applies here, I raise the point
> that these two motors should be 'recertified' back onto the AML

The USR K125-FS was one of these.

> 18) <8> NAR has a policy wherein an established manufacturer can 'demo'
> new motors at a sanc-tioned launch prior to their official approval. I
> have talked with Gary Rosenfield about this a little and feel that it
> might not be a bad idea for Tripoli to have a similar program. This is
> how I see a 'possible scenario' on this: An established commercial
> manufacturer can 'demo' a new motor design (prior to commercial
> availability and TMT test) under the following conditions:

Too many conditions follow. IT should be allowed on a blanket basis for
all manufacturers with ANY already certified motors of that general
variety (reloadable, expendable, hybrid, liquid, nuclear etc)

>
> 1) A maximum of FIVE (5) motors of any one designation can be
> flown under this program.
>
> 2) There will be no time limit over which these 5 motors can
> be demoed.
>

Silly

> 3) The manufacturer or a full time employee must actually
> prepare the vehicle and conduct the launch.
>

They should be present when the TRA member flys his rocket with the test
motor. He should be allowed to assign an established dealer perhaps with
a 2 motor per event limit in this case.

> 4) The rocket vehicle used does not necessarily have to be
> 'from the manufacturer' - any Tripoli member present who
> wants to 'donate' the use of his vehicle can do so.
>
> 5) A minimum of 30 days prior notice to the RSO/Launch Organizer,
> the Tripoli Board, and the TMT committee shall be required.
>

No.

> 6) Written approval for the launch shall be tendered by all
> parties at least 7 days prior to the launch.
>

Maybe AT THE LAUNCH, otherwise, NO.

> 7) After the fifth flight, the manufacturer can elect to submit
> the motor to TMT for testing or withdraw it - in all cases
> NO further flight operations shall be allowed for this motor
> after the fifth flight unless it is granted TMT approval by
> successful static test.
>

Silly

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 34:

The Trip to New Orleans:
-----------------------

Got the car packed and headed out to New Orleans on Thursday morning, 20
January 1994. As was becoming the norm <g>, it looked like any trip I
made for Tripoli was going to involve a lot of thinking - sadly, again,
about this guy Kelly. The trip took pretty much all of the day Thursday
(circa 500 miles). Dwight and I had reviewed many things as concerns
Robert's Rules and TRAs bylaws and I felt pretty good that I had plenty
of 'substance' to my arguments concerning setting Committee policy
without 'worshipping' the Board, as Kelly apparently was of the opinion
of <g>. I *did* feel, leading up to this New Orleans meeting that I
probably *would* have to defend that position - inasmuch as I have
stated previously, I *knew* the personalities on this Board from those
years of sitting in the meetings. I *knew* that Rogers and Kelly could
pretty much get what they wanted *when* they wanted it. I did NOT know
(at this hour) the *degree* of closeness between Rogers and Kelly -
emphasize the word 'degree' - but I would find out about this in the
next day or two. Based on the conversations I had with some of the
other BoD members prior to this trip, I had *some* reasonable
expectation that the deteriorating relationship between myself and Kelly
just *might* be checked - but I always had in my mind about the
Rogers/Kelly 'control' over certain things within the BoD. I was
prepared to defend the position about Kelly's 'interpretations' from the
bylaws, if that became necessary. And, as stated, I had absolutely NO
idea about the changes to Article XI (the 'amendment article').

I did spend some time thinking about Kelly and his actions up to this
point. My attitudes (due as much to my *much* better understanding of
RRoO and TRAs bylaws as anything) were beginning to harden toward Kelly.
Some of his 'tactics' (writing to the 'cc list', etc) were not
completely crystal clear to me at this point in time - as I had received
only three letters from him (Nov and 2 in Jan). Fundamentally, the
thing that most contributed to this 'hardening' was the fact that he
took *such* an arrogant and condescending attitude about my policy
decisions - especially considering the fact that it was HIS acts that
necessitated it. I thought of his use of the word 'humility' in that
1/12 letter and just shook my head - I mean, the *nerve* of this guy!!

Arrived in New Orleans after dark on Thursday evening. I had (upon
instructions from Lamothe) made my reservations thru his recommended
travel agent - at the DoubleTree Inn on Canal street. Coming down
towards the river on Canal, I realized we were going to be right in the
heart of the French Quarter. Found the Inn and checked my car in to an
adjacent parking facility and checked in. About the 7th floor,
overlooking the Mississippi - only about 2 blocks away - right at the
River Walk. Naturally, there was the 'classic' mint on the pillowcase.
<This thing is getting a little 'ritzy', isn't it, Cato?> The 'discount'
rate was something like $80/night (yeah, the 'normal' rate was on the
order of $120). Most BoD members brought their wives and, as I
understand, those extra expenses were assumed by the members themselves
(as was travel expense to get here). It still struck me as a little
more than was necessary, however. I mean, 2 blocks from the River - two
blocks the other way to Bourbon Street. Nice places, to be sure - but
excessive for such a small organization.

[Note to reader - the minutes of this meeting are in the Tripoli Report
- v5n2 - April 1994 - beginning on page 10]

Friday - 21 Jan. '94
--------------------

Friday morning, got down to the second floor meeting room and found
everybody. Kolb was not there immediately (but arrived later). Typical
early business stuff (approving prior minutes and stuff). Scot Dingman
(TRA HQ close by in Kenner, LA) was there for most of this weekend, but
don't remember if he was here this AM (the minutes do not show him being
there AT ALL - which is simply an 'error'. Also, Ken Vosecek came down
from the Chicago area, but did not arrive this day at all, as I recall -
again, his presence is ALSO not mentioned in the minutes (???)). I will
not waste the reader's time with a 'play by play' of all this - just the
more germane points that transpired. On this morning, about the only
thing of merit to discuss here was the discussion about the lawsuit that
Jerry Irvine had filed. This WAS done in Exectutive Session (although
the minutes do not indicate that) - immediately prior to this, I asked
if I needed to excuse myself from the discussion - but everyone was in
agreement that it didn't matter - so I stayed. As I recall the
'finding' of this action was accomplished by Maness (see the minutes).
The discussion was not that big a deal and about the only thing I
remember from it was exactly *where* venue would be if officially filed.
Kolb arrived right before lunch.

After lunch, we got into some of the more 'innocuous' TMT issues - and,
particularly, this 'deadline' for only accepting DOT listed motor
products - which was to formalize the 'demand' by Dane Boles back at
Long Island. As the reader will remember, those 'late October motions'
had been stalled off (mostly by Lamothe) to here in New Orleans. The
initial discussion was that this would go into affect either *at* the
conclusion of this meeting or shortly thereafter (1 February) -
something to that effect. Seeing here that Lamothe had the COMPLETE
'inside track' on this and realizing that the rest of the TRA membership
would have NO idea this 'door' was closing, both Wacker and I raised the
point (almost simultaneously) that this was simply NOT fair - and that
there should be some kind of 'window' for others to respond. From that,
the date was pushed back to 1 March 1994 - motion made and carried. I
still felt 'uneasy' about this - as it was a VERY short time for other
members to respond - and Lamothe was getting off pretty good here.
Immediately after this motion came the motion (minutes, item 10
/TRv5n2pg10) to print a 'quickie' TR to get this kind of stuff out to
the membership.

A little later, there was a letter read (written by Rich Zarecki)
concerning expiration dates for motors already on the TMT list (minutes,
item 14) and the discussion following centered on the fact that motors
that had been on the list prior to my administration had the 'clock
ticking' when, in reality, Tripoli had NOT been enforcing the use of
approved motors (ONLY) at launches. As a result, some of these motors
were due up for retesting soon. In an attempt to 'level the playing
field' a little, it was decided to extend these older approvals for two
years. There was some 'hashing' of just what cutoff date should be used
and I finally clarified that issue by stating our first test session was
9/4/93 and that probably the best date would be 9/1/93 - right before
that. Thus, the date shown in the minutes (item 14).

Towards the end of this days meetings, Rosenfield informed the Board
about the 'BATF Letter of Clarification' issue. Readers should remember
the point I brought up in my Long Island segment where Larry McCune (of
ATF) asked *where* this letter (to be coming from the hobby) was - and
the somewhat embarassing situation Tripoli was in because of it ("Well,
I guess we dropped the ball on that one." <Rogers>). Well, this item in
the minutes is where that was addressed before the Board.

After the conclusion of the days meeting (and before supper), Gerry Kolb
dropped by my room for some small talk. During that interval, Gerry
told me that his wife had sent a message by him to give to me: "Tell
John I think Bruce has finally met his match." I just kind of shrugged
- but thought it somewhat interesting. Has he? Although this days
meetings did not cover TMT issues in any great detail, Bruce was a
little quiet.

Afterwards, Kolb, Wacker and I went out to the Pearl Restaurant - up a
couple of blocks (away from the river) on St. Charles. 20 years ago
when I was in New Orleans visiting a friend at Tulane, he showed me this
little 'hole in the wall'. Had a simple but *good* oyster bar and was
known for some very good sandwiches - roast beef, turkey, etc. I had
suggested this to Kolb and Wacker and they were in agreement to give it
a try. When we got down to it, noticed (next door?) another restaurant,
Kolb's German restaurant (!) Gerry got kind of a thrill out of finding
a 'family' restaurant (nope, no relation). However, we still decided to
try out the Pearl.

I cannot begin to remember what I even had, as it was during this meal
that the whole world just did an 'about face'. During the meal and some
small talk, the discussion turned to Bruce and his current 'campaign' of
letter writing. I brought up about the mis-quotes of the bylaws from
his 1/11 letter and that it was nothing more than 'excessive
interpretation' of the bylaws. I further stated it was good such
interpretation couldn't hold - nor could it actually become a part of
the bylaws without the membership voting something like that in.
(remember, this was the *first* communication I had with *any* on the
Board since all these letters arrived a couple of weeks before. Lamothe
and I had talked a time or two - but not on this topic) Then the world
fell in. Wacker corrected me, "No, no, John - that's not right. We
found out in 1990 that the *Board* can amend the bylaws." I looked at
Wacker in absolute total *shock* - eyes wide - and said, "That is
*frightening*!" Wacker didn't 'connect' with the concern I expressed
and looked back at me with the most 'puzzled' expression on his face. I
then added, "You know, that is a *complete* reversal of the powers of
the entire corporation as stated in the original bylaws. *Why* wouldn't
somebody have picked up on this???" Kolb made some statement to the
effect that he (Gerry) *did* bring that up (at some meeting ????) but
that it was, more or less, ignored. Well, my appetite just disappeared.
After the Pearl, the three of us wandered on down to Bourbon Street for
a bit - but I was still in a daze about this.

After I got back to the hotel room, I just lay there in the bed -
staring at the ceiling trying to figure out exactly *how* such a massive
change in the corporation's powers could have happened. I was also
baffled in that, to the best of my knowledge the membership at large had
NO idea about this 'change' that occurred in '90. Did the Board now
have complete authority for amendments now? Was this shared *equally*
with the members? I didn't have the foggiest. I was NOT feeling very
good at all - and I had absolutely NO idea HOW this change occurred,
whether it was legal, WHO told them... *nothing*. In light of Kelly's
pretty much presumptuous attitude that was shaping up in this
'difference' we had - and knowing from the past years how he and Rogers
could 'get' something, if they wanted it from the Board, I could begin
to see pretty clearly how this 'thing' was going to 'play out'. If I
raised any strong arguments about this 'mis-quote' from Kelly, there was
a simple solution to that - just change the bylaws - bang, game over and
Cato can now be held in his place. I rapidly came to the conclusion
that there simply was NO fair way for this thing to be resolved - what
with one side using the bylaws (that they could change) to support their
arguments, I was merely in a complete 'drift' to do anything about it.

It wasn't too long after this realization that I (equally rapidly)
decided I could no longer be a part of this. This was not in 'anger' -
just a ominous feeling (moreso than when I left Wichita) akin to being
part of a crime. I wanted NONE of it and decided to draft out my
resignation from TMT (and was vascillating on even a resignation from
Tripoli), leaving it on the Board room table (if I could get in) and,
quite literally, leaving in the middle of the night - being back in
Georgia when they convened the next morning. I wanted OUT of this as
rapidly and thoroughly as possible. The decision was made and 99%
finalized - and I was just moments away from reaching for the suitcase
to start packing when I picked up a copy of my 1/3/94 letter that I had
with me and read that first page - particularly about this thing of
always standing up for the truth - regardless of the danger. I then
'caught myself' and said, "No, John, you've got to stay here and let
them know about your concerns." Then the sick feeling in the pit of
your stomach settles in <g> - you know, that one where you've got to do
something you don't want to do, but know it has to be done.

I didn't sleep much that night.

Saturday - 22 Jan. '94
----------------------

Sometime here on Saturday AM, Ken Vosecek (former BoD member and
Treasurer) showed up. I don't remember exactly when Ken arrived - but
it was quite early - he didn't miss much of the AM meetings, if any at
all, as I recall. Also, Scot Dingman (TRA HQ) was here for most of the
day also.

The morning meetings concerned TMT mostly - and these more 'sensitive'
issues were discussed - particularly the 'silence policy' I had set in
place. Kelly was *abnormally* quiet during most all of this discussion
and Rogers pretty much 'took the helm' on these discussions. My
attention was somewhat divided, what with what I discovered the previous
evening - but Kelly didn't make any major fuss about the policy - but
that didn't mean my particular side was going to prevail, either.
Rogers pretty much ran things here and I was beginning to get a little
better idea of how these two 'got along'. The discussion as it concerns
this preliminary information being held within the committee resulting
in a 'mode' of thinking to put, absolutely, in the president's and
vice-president's hands the decision about letting out preliminary
information from the committee. I was kind of just watching here -
besides contributing. When the wording for this 'policy' (see minutes,
1-22-94, item 2 [TR, v5n2, pg 12] started emerging, I observed that
there would be a possibility of a 'tie vote' (since only two were
involved - P and VP) and that it would be proper (considering my
closeness to the information) for my vote, as TMT chair to cast the
'tie-breaker'. Rogers just simply wasn't going to have any of that and
said, flatly, "No." Not hard to figure out how I responded to that - I
didn't like it at all - but didn't say much. I mean, really, here's two
people (P and VP) with fundamentally all they needed to justify almost
the exact same thing that happened the previous September - and one of
them was one that was party to the event happening previously (Lamothe).
While the chair of the committee that was responsible for the
information they were deciding how and when to divulge had absolutely NO
say in the matter. It sucked big wong <g>.

I think it proper to put down here the wording from the minutes on this
for the uninitiated:

[Tripoli Report, v5n2, April 1994 - page 12, col. 1 & 2]

"2. TMT Policy's [sic]

The TMT chair will contact the President, VP and Manufacturer
of any safety concerns that arise as a result of testing. The
TMT chair shall also provide any information requested by the
President or VP, and inform the manufacturer of the disclosure
of the information.

If the President or VP as advised by the TMT chair, determine
that a safety issue exists for Tripoli Members, The Board can
vote to distribute TMT information, to the members.

Since information from the TMT can provide economic advantage,
should a conflict of interest arise, the President and VP shall
delegate this responsibility to an disinterested board member.

Moved: Charles Rogers
Seconded: Dennis Wacker
Motion Passed: Unanimous with Gary Rosenfield,
Wm. Maness, Dennis Lamothe
Abstaining."

[comment: we may discuss some of this later - jhc]

------

The minutes show all these motions occuring pretty much at the end of
the discussion (and, thereby, the entire morning's 'events'), it should
be stated that they were more 'distributed' during the morning.
Immediately after this motion was taken, there was a 'break' called.
The reader will notice that Lamothe 'abstained' on this vote. Well, in
reality, he didn't - he voted FOR the motion. During the break, while
in the bathroom, I approached Dennis and reminded him that he was in a
somewhat 'conflict of interest' on this issue - being both VP *and* a
'latent competitor', what with his personal motor manufacturing. Dennis
didn't agree with me about the 'conflict'. After the break, Lamothe
went up to Maness and had his 'vote' changed. (this it typical for
Dennis - he just simply *can't* admit it to your face if you are right
on something - Zarecki had told me about that 'trait' back at LDRS 12)

It was also during one of these breaks that I had pulled out those
sample thrust curves that I had prepared. The J-800 curve (mentioned
previously) had two different thrust traces (total impulse was almost
identical) and I figured this was due to the wrong nozzle being shipped
with the motor. It was during this time, before the Board reconvened
that I had this out, and, as I remember Bartel was close by (as was
Rosenfield - who commented about the J-800 curves looking like two
different motors). Ken Vosecek walked up early during this perusal and
said, "Where'd you get THAT!!" I responded that this was what I was
'hoping' for the ultimate output from TMT. Kelly was standing on the
other side of the table arrangement ('O' shape arrangement with a 'hole'
in the middle) (about 10 feet away - more or less) and responded to
Ken's remark, "Yeah, those curves are *nice*," but was too far away to
see exactly what I had. This was the FIRST time I had this 'dream
format' (tabular top/curve bottom) in a physical form. What he *did*
know about (and was referring to) was the 'presentation format', which,
as has been stated - was forwarded to him with my 11/17/93 transmittal.

After this break (still in the morning), the Board reconvened,
continuing the TMT discussions. At some point here (and I don't
remember exactly how it turned to this), Rogers brought up my letter to
him (from 12/9/93 - wherein I would accept no compromises) and got
pretty 'acidic'. From my observations of the majority of the rest of
the Board, I gathered they had not been made aware of it (remember, it
was NOT cc'd to the Board). I don't remember looking at Kelly to see
his reaction, particularly. Rogers got quite firm and stated that he
had, "lost a lot of respect for you (meaning me) with this letter"
continuing with something to the effect, "I expect you to completely
level with me when we talk." (meaning that I had be 'withholding' my
true feelings on our telephone conversation and then 'tightened' up
after we hung up). I looked straight at Rogers, didn't bat an eye, nor
shuffle around my papers to try to find this letter - and responded
without a seconds pause, "Chuck, you will recall that the FIRST two
words of the SECOND sentence in that letter said, 'UPON REFLECTION..'"
Rogers fell silent and didn't say a word in response.

(I later heard (a week or so later) from Mike Platt that the rumor mill
was that I had 'slammed' Rogers on the table (or something to that
effect) in New Orleans. I'm still not exactly sure where that came from
or, even, what it referred to - but this may have been what it was.)

Again, through most all this, Kelly was abnormally quiet. And I never
heard so much as a *syllable* about Bruce's 'proposal' to give every
Board member the right to amend the AML (remember, I ripped him apart on
that in my 1/3/94 letter - but I *meant* it). Never once came up.

The 'Item 3' issue (shown in the minutes immediately following the above
'motion 2') that concerned 'bylaws revision issues are to be addressed
at the general assembly meeting at LDRS (right before lunch -
supposedly) is something I simply don't remember being discussed.
However, it could have been an 'outgrowth' of these earlier discussions
this morning. Was this the 'beginnings' of changing the bylaws to
substantiate the Kelly 'side' of the Kelly/Cato disagreement? It would
fit with that - but, like I said, I simply have no recollection of this
being discussed.

Broke for lunch late (at 12:45 - according to the minutes).

After we settled in after lunch, I requested to address the Board. I
had to get this 'concern' of mine about the 'revelation' of the previous
night off my chest. When granted the floor, I stated very simply, with
almost no emotion (but concern), "I didn't know until last night that,
in 1990, the Board found out they could amend the bylaws - effectively
reversing the membership's authority over them while, at the same time,
STILL sending out the ORIGINAL bylaws to every single member that has
joined since. Gentlemen, I have *serious* moral and ethical problems
with that!" There immediately befell over the entire Board deathly
silence followed shortly with nine purple (OK, deep red <g>) faces.

This statement of mine expressed, fundamentally, that there was gross
misrepresentation going on - effectively lying to the membership about
one of their most fundamental rights. Those readers should notice that
the minutes show (TR, v5n2, pg12):

-----

"Broke for lunch at 12:45... to return at 2:00pm

Reconvened at 2:11

The board moved into executive session at 2:14. The
executive session ended at 2:48"

-----

What happened in those 3 little minutes from the time we reconvened and
they went into executive session? Did we just 'sit there' and twiddle
our thumbs? If they reconvened and went into executive session
immediately, wouldn't it make more sense to just say in the minutes,
"The Board reconvened at 2:14 and went into executive session." Seems
reasonable to me. But, to leave a '3 minute hole' in the record seems
more than a little 'bizarre'.

As the reader has probably guessed, it was in those 3 minutes that I
stated those words above about my 'moral and ethical problems'. Why was
this 'deleted' from the minutes? To the astute, it is pretty easy to
discern exactly *what* is discussed in executive session - just look at
the motions that follow immediately thereafter. However, in this case,
if the minutes had shown correctly that I had said what I did - it
wouldn't make the Board look too good. Further, I addressed the Board
again on Sunday afternoon and, *this* time the minutes DO show that I
'addressed the board concerning bylaws' (we'll get to this shortly). If
they were worried about how my address here Sat. after lunch would make
them look to the membership, could they not just say the same thing:
"John Cato addressed the board concerning bylaws." Actually, no -
because if the record were to (correctly) show something even as
innocuous as that, it would be not be good, either:

John Cato addressed the Board concerning bylaws

The Board moves into executive session
(lasting a LONG 34 minutes)

Motion: to print the bylaws (minutes, item 4)

Motion: to have a vote on accepting the current bylaws (item 5)

What did John Cato say to cause such a long 'session' and why did they
feel the need to 'address' the issues of this 'session' by printing and
voting on the bylaws???

See what I mean.

By completely dropping any reference to the fact that I did, indeed,
'address the Board concerning bylaws' - or, worse, that I expressed
EXTREME concern about certain issues surrounding those bylaws - it is
the only way it could be made to appear I had NO connection with this
'disclosure' about the bylaws and vote on them (minutes, items 4 & 5).
Had I not raised this issue here on Sat. after lunch, the membership
would have NEVER even *seen* the bylaws that they *did* see (in the
April TR - v5n2).

Further, with the 'notation' in the minutes (right prior to lunch) about
'bylaws revision issues' (which, as I stated, I have no memory of) -
*NOW* we have some kind of 'connection' that may 'justify' this
'executive session' that occurred after lunch. Forget it - that
executive session would have NEVER happened without my 'address'. Those
bylaws (such as they were) would have NEVER been shown to the members.
That 'vote' (such as IT was) would have NEVER been 'asked' of the
members. (I have some MAJOR problems with this 'vote', anyway - but
we'll get to that several parts down the line). There will be further
corroboration of these conclusions that surface on Sunday.

It was RIGHT here - between 2:11 and 2:14 pm on Saturday, 22 Jan. '94
that 'The Great Tripoli Bylaws Fiasco of 1994' started.

---------------

Next in Part 35: The 'Aftermath' of the 'bomb'.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>
> The 'CATO Chronicles'

>
> Next in Part 35: The 'Aftermath' of the 'bomb'.

Time for another 'intermission'.

We'll continue with Part 35 the beginning of next week - 8/5

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 35:

Before I get into the 'aftermath' of my comments on this Saturday
afternoon in New Orleans, a reiteration (and expansion) of some comments
I have made earlier is in order. Some may say that my reaction to
Wacker's comment Friday evening at supper (about the Board having
amendment rights over the bylaws) was excessive. I have stated
previously that Dwight (my friend and the 'bylaws whiz') discussed some
of this 'proper' purpose of the bylaws and that these discussions in
December and early January ('94) pretty well 'primed' me to 'pick up' on
things in New Orleans that would, otherwise, have gone 'right over my
head'.

Those who have been in positions to work with things like bylaws, or
undertook study of Robert's Rules of Order (forevermore referred to as
'RRoO') will need no explanation as to the importance of bylaws.
Effectively, the bylaws define *EVERYTHING* within an organization. The
ability to change them is a VERY POWERFUL right. With the kinds of
powers and rights granted by the bylaws, some 'checks' have to be placed
on them - to prevent abuse. Inasmuch as the Tripoli Articles of
Incorporation define Tripoli as a "Membership Corporation", this, by
default, gives the membership some pretty basic rights and powers. One
of those is the right of amendment over the bylaws. When an
organization takes money from individuals (like TRA does when a member
joins), they HAVE to grant certain rights and privileges to said member
in *many* states (per state statutes).

To let this right rest in the hands of 9 people is a *very* dangerous
thing - especially so, since all the powers and responsibilities of
those 9 are, themselves, defined *in* those bylaws. I will get to
(later) some research I did in the Univ. of GA Law Libraries on some of
this - but the most noted experts in the field of organizational
structure *strongly* warn against placing the powers of amendment in the
hands of *any* one small group - which includes the Board of Directors.

I will cite but one example of the potential for abuse that can come
from this - and this is in answer to some 'analysis' that surfaced by
some over on CIS in early '94 that this 'deal' of the Board's amendment
right is not that 'big a deal' - and supported that argument with a
(supposed) 'fact' that it would be pretty hard for the Board to find
itself comprised of 9 'loonies' - which is where the 'damage' could be
done. 9 'loonies'?? Does anybody happen to know where the number of
directors is tied to this 'magic' number of *9*?? Yep, that is spelled
out *IN THE BYLAWS*. Alaska Statutes state that the number of directors
MUST be no less than THREE, so the Board could not take its composition
down below that. But, since they *can* change their composition if they
have the amendment right - it's pretty easy to conceive an 'abuse
scenario'. With 9 directors, it only takes FIVE to reduce it to 5
(which 5 would this be?? <g>). Once it is at 5, it only takes THREE to
reduce it (again) to 3. Once at 3, there can be no further reduction -
but, now, only TWO people can 'run' the Board - *legally* that is. It
is extremely disconcerting that the fortunes of a corporation could rest
in the hands of only TWO people. (In light of my discussions of the
*realities* of how the TRA BoD is run, is there any doubt who comes to
*my* mind to fill these 'two' slots???)

(I must address another possibility here).

Some may counter that, if it got that bad, the members could just 'can
the turkeys', right? Oh no you can't - because, here again, the method
of removal of a director is spelled out *in the bylaws* - as is their
term of office - as is whether or not they are compensated - as is....
it goes on and on.

I truly hope folks can see pretty clearly why I reacted with such shock
and (yes) fear at what I found out that Friday evening at the Pearl
Restaurant in New Oreans. This kind of *true* power canNOT rest in the
hands of only NINE people - not now, not EVER. And, had Dwight and I
not reviewed and studied before this meeting, I wouldn't have seen as
clearly as I did the very *ominous* nature of this 'reversal' that
happened to Tripoli back in 1990. And, it is obvious from Wacker's
response (puzzlement) that the reality hadn't dawned on him, either.

Expansion #2:

I mentioned previously in my rebuttal to Kelly's letter of 1/12/94 about
him 'priming the pump' (for New Orleans?) as it concerns me getting 'too
close to the manufacturers'. Well, as I have already said, Kelly was
(to me) abnormally quiet in New Orleans and Rogers was 'wielding the
reigns' there. As would be guessed, this thing of me 'getting too
close' came up (and it *wasn't* is the grandest of light, either). This
occurred during the Saturday morning's meetings, as I recall (discussed
previously in Part 34). I don't, at this hour, remember the exact
details of how that was handled by myself or the 'other' side - but it
pretty much burned itself out. Problem was, this is just like an
opposing attorney asking a question that is overruled as improper.
Doesn't matter - the jury has already 'heard it' - and that is pretty
much how I 'read' this thing of me 'getting too close' - it was more for
the rest of the Board's sake than it was mine. Further, 'they' never
really *explained* what actions on my part was 'too close' - nor offered
any suggestions of how to 'deal' with this 'concern' that 'they' had.
This is like an RSO telling Joe Rocketeer his rocket is unsafe and then
ignoring the rash of questions from Joe as to, "In what way???" I felt
I was 'keeping my distance', with the total understanding that I could
NOT let any manufacturer have any leeway beyond what NFPA 1127 grants -
while, at the same time, trying to work WITH the manufacturers to
address whatever problems and concerns they had - with the BOTTOM LINE
of *getting those motors tested and approved* - as this served the TRA
membership - to whom I felt *ultimate* responsibility. Naturally, it
was Rogers and Kelly who (to all *I* knew) were having problems
(supposedly) with whatever 'closeness' they perceived - no other
Director expressed to me, personally, any concerns along this line -
either verbally or in writing. They (R/K) were simply 'leading' the
Board, in my view.

The 'Aftermath' of the 'bomb':
-----------------------------

Broke for lunch at 12:45... to return at 2:00 pm

Reconvened at 2:11

<John Cato asked to address the Board and expressed his extreme concern
at the misrepresentation of the bylaws to the membership, discovered the
night before - in that the Board now had (apparently) amendment rights
over them - while saying NOTHING to the membership about this 'change'
that had (apparently) occurred in 1990 - a period of over 3 1/2 years.>

The board moved into Executive Session at 2:14. The
executive session ended at 2:48.

4. Motion
To direct the publication committee to print the
current By-laws [sic] in the next Tripoli Report.

Moved: Dick Embry
Seconded: Wm. Maness
Motion Passed: Unanimous

5. Motion
The election committee is directed to include the
following on the next Board of Directors election
ballot; "I approve the Tripoli Rocketry Assn. Inc.
bylaws as published in the March 1994 issue of the
Tripoli Report ( ) Yes ( ) No."

Moved: Dick Embry
Seconded: Wm. Maness
Motion Passed: Unamimous

------------------

The above is how the minutes *should* have read, in order to be correct
(and, therefore, in compliance with Alaska Law). After the accounting
for New Orleans, I will spend a little time about these 'quirks' in the
minutes that are becoming all too common.

Note: Did anybody notice that the word 'bylaws' is spelled two
different ways: 'By-laws' in Motion 4 and 'bylaws' in Motion 5??? Did
the Secretary somehow 'get religion' between motions 4 and 5 and learn
how to spell it correctly?? Interesting, isn't it, the the motion,
second, and vote is EXACTLY the same for both Motions 4 and 5. Hmmmm...
Guess who normally spells this as 'By-laws'? Guess who is the chairman
of the publication committee?? Guess who normally prints (and has the
final 'editorial' review) of the Tripoli Report (regardless of who is
listed as 'editor')??? Same person in all three cases: Bruce Kelly.

That 34 minute Executive Session is L O N G for a typical Board matter
(Go back and look at past minutes and try to find similar instances of
1/2 hour long Executive Sessions). Naturally, Scot Dingman, Ken
Vosecek, and myself were NOT in attendance in *this* Executive Session.

After the 'session' was over and we returned to the room, I could sense
the 'tension' in the room. Gary Rosenfield had looked my way back
before the Exec. Sess. in a somewhat 'shocked' way, almost as to say,
"John, what the hell are you *doing* here???" Just about every time I
looked back his way the rest of the afternoon, he was *still* looking my
way with concern on his face. After the above motions (4? and 5) were
made, I addressed the Board again, "Gentlemen, I'm not saying this was
done maliciously, just that it has to be done right and fixed." Not
much response.

Later on that afternoon, during a break, I approached Scott Bartel out
in the lobby (this meeting in New Orleans was the first time I saw him
fact to face) and told him, effectively the same thing personally,
"Scott, I'm not saying this was a malicious act and I'm not trying to
create problems - but it has to be done right." Scott was not in strong
agreement with my view - but was not disagreeing either. As the
meetings closed the next day, Scott made a comment in front of the Board
along the lines of 'Whew, this Board deal can have it's heavy moments'
(something to that effect). I read this comment on Sunday as him not
being aware of some of the 'big' things the Board has to deal with -
and, retrospectively, could assume the same as it concerns Bartel's
response to my personal comments here on Sat. afternoon.

Later on this afternoon, we get into the situation of LDRS 13 (minutes,
items 8 & 9, TR v5n2pg13) - and, particularly, the 'money thing' and
altitude 'caps'. There was apparently some differing views as to how
the money was understood to be split from the previous year (LDRS 12)
and the Kansas guys were not completely happy with things. As far as
the altitude 'cap' situation, the discussion centered on how much the
site there in Argonia could handle. After the motion (#9) to 'cap it'
at 25,000 feet for LDRS 13, Embry made some comments that he could and
would get in touch with the FAA guys there and 'explain' it to them.
After all this (months later), I had conversations with some of the
Kansas guys and they expressed chagrin at Embry 'nosing' into their
relations with the FAA. I am in 100% agreement with this - Embry had NO
right *whatsoever* to come between an end user and the FAA. His
'status' as a TRA Board member means NOTHING - and the proper thing
would have been to have discussions with the Kansas guys first (and,
maybe, ONLY). The FAA doesn't give a hoot *who* is the sponsoring
organization under the airspace they grant - nor do they even care about
whether such organization even provides insurance - so what the hell is
some cocky TRA Board member doing sticking his nose into affairs that
doesn't concern him? No good, that's for sure - and that was the case
here.

Later still, we turn again to some TMT stuff (prior to Item 11, pg 13).
This mostly concerns the Class C (model rocket) testing and whatever
time line can be implemented to test the 'little' stuff. Part of why
TMT is having to deal with this is Rosenfield's disagreement with NAR
S&T as it concerns some testing they performed for him - disagreements
about delay problems and such. I reminded the Board that these 'little'
RMS motors take about as much time to assemble and get ready to fire as
big ones - and, with the greater numbers to be tested, progress on
clearing this backlog would be slower. This is where the notation in
the minutes about additional volunteers being needed comes from. I
believe it is also here that I inform the Board that, to put in place a
full fledged 'big' motor testing capability, they should allow $2000.
What we were talking about here is a pretty much permanent facility (I
have a 6 acre field in my back yard that would be just about perfect)
with reinforced concrete bulkheads and such.

That about covers things for Saturday. We all decide (based on Kolb,
Wacker, and my discovery of Kolb's German Restaurant the night before)
to go there for supper this evening. Food was good, the evening was
civil, but there was 'tension' in the air, to be sure. Afterwards, back
down to Bourbon Street.

Since Vosecek has shown up, and I have two beds in my room, I offer to
Ken to use the other bed which he accepts. We spend some pretty decent
time discussing this 'change in powers' I brought up this day. Ken
still didn't quite see the 'fear' I expressed at this change - but after
a little bit of elaboration as to potential for abuse, Ken begins to
understand what I'm talking about.

Sunday - 1-23-94:
----------------

This morning starts out with another Executive Session - partly to
discuss the 'clearing out' of Bill Wood's (immediate past chair to TMT)
expenses. A fire alarm interrupts this session and we all have to
evacuate the building - believe there was some smoke detector that went
off in a laundry room or something. The fire trucks *did* come to the
scene - but it was apparently a minor thing and, after about 30 minutes,
everybody is allowed back in the building - where the Executive Session
ends.

After this, the issues of the CRSO (Certified RSO) program comes up. As
the reader will remember, I was somewhat involved in a peripheral sense
with this 'grass roots' effort by Dave Sutton, Al Swazey, and others -
which was the subject of Kelly's 1-12-94 letter to me. This effort is
basically put under the purview of Board member Scott Bartel - along
with the TAP (Technical Advisory Panel), which is Scott's 'baby'. I
intend to revisit this later.

The discussion turns, once again, to this 'bylaw issue' (minutes, item 5
(+immediately preceding), TR v5n2pg14) and the 'vote' to be taken on
them by the membership. It was here that Rogers addressed me about this
'vote' in the most 'acidic' tone of the entire weekend, asking me, "Will
*THIS* do, John?" This guy was pissed and his emphasis on the the word
'THIS' was filled with venom. Immediately after, Lamothe responded
(with his back to me), "I won't do any good to waste $600 of the
Association's money to send out ballots if this won't satisfy you."
Dennis was a little more than slightly 'ticked' by this also, as
witnessed by his tone of voice. I made no representation that I was
'happy' by this - nor did I say, 'No, it won't do' - as my
'satisfaction' with the issue had nothing to do with it. This was
nothing but 'playing politics'. The irritation expressed by both Rogers
(mostly) and Lamothe is indication that I had them over a barrel - and
they were 'searching' to find some way to 'smooth things over' and get
out of an embarassing situation. So what if a 'agreed' to the process?
What does that prove? Nothing. What if I was adamantly against it?
Again, nothing is proven - as it had NOTHING to do with me. There was a
reversal of the powers of the Corporation 3 1/2 years prior - the
'leadership' of that Corporation said NOTHING about it to the membership
- and they're asking *ME* if I would 'be satisfied' with it???? I
didn't like what was 'shaping up' here - as it was giving indication
that, indeed, they may not 'come clean' with the members - and, thus, no
categorical acceptance of their 'proposal'. I told the Board once again
that I was NOT (repeat NOT) alleging this 'change' was malicious - but
it HAD to be *FIXED*.

After a break to check out, things were beginning to wind down.
Practically NONE of the items on my 'Miscellaneous Items' list I had
given them had been addressed - and I wasn't of the opinion that they
*had* to be addressed here at this meeting - but the issue of my phone
bill allowance *was* something I wanted addressed - as $25.00 just
wasn't covering it. I got Wacker's attention (he was sitting next to me
here on Sunday) and pointed this out to him. Wacker got the attention
of Rogers and brought this up and whether they should 'go into Executive
Session' on it. Which they did (minutes, immediately prior to Item 7 -
TR v5n2pg14). I realized while walking out of the Board Room that this
was to discuss whether or not I might 'blackmail' them on getting this
additional $25 increase. The big issue of the misrepresentation of the
bylaws had put them in a defensive posture - I had them in a very
compromising position and I guess they figured I knew that and would use
it to get anything I wanted. Not true. I did want to get that phone
bill increased, but wouldn't have made an issue over it if I didn't -
this was completely unrelated to this 'bylaws issue'.

With Dingman, Vosecek and myself waiting out in the lobby during this
Exectutive Session - and after more than a days worth of seeing their
reactions to the 'bomb' I dropped on them Saturday after lunch, I
realized that some of their 'concerns' could have some basis in validity
- was I fixing to grind the organization to a halt over this? Could
they even appropriate funds? etc.etc. I was searching for a way to, at
least, give them a way to continue to act as Tripoli's Board - and do
the things that they would have to do in continuing to 'run the
organization'. Then the light came on: "Why don't they resort to
operating under the ORIGINAL bylaws?" I mean, TRA had (seemed to) do
just fine for the 4 years from 1986 (date of incorporation) up to 1990
(when these powers reversed). So, why not just 'fall back' to them here
in the interim? I started to discuss this with Vosecek and Dingman and
they pretty much understood what I was talking about. However, Dingman
had this 'frown' on his face for most of this - somewhat akin to
Rosenfield's expression the previous day - "John, why are you doing
this??" - something to that affect (at least, how I took his
expression). After this short, 5 minute Executive Session, the motion
was put forth to raise my phone bill and passed. Ken Vosecek made the
comment, "You guys went into Executive Session for a $25 *PHONE
BILL*?!?!? Geesh!"

After that motion, I asked to address the Board again (this time it IS
shown in the minutes) and said, "Guys, I think I've got a simple
solution here - it will not impact on your abilities to set policy,
appropriate funds, basically run the organization. Just revert back to
the ORIGINAL bylaws until this can be fixed." Kolb answered nervously
and rapidly, "That's what we're going to do, John. That's what we're
going to do." Rogers grumbled something along a similar vein - but I
could tell he was still 'ticked' at me.

Later, the issues of the Legal Defense Fund came up - that there was
still a fair amount of billings that had not been paid and that the law
firm in Washington had stopped work on the issue. There was not enough
money to pay the bill in full. Then, I watched (somewhat increduously)
as the Board voted *themselves* administrators of the 'fund' and, in the
very next motion, vote to give $3000 to the 'California Problem'
(minutes, items 10 & 11, TR v5n2pg15). It just struck me as exceedingly
odd that, with $20,000 due and payable to a D.C. legal firm - and about
$7500 balance in the fund - to go and give almost *half* that balance to
a single state (and THIS on top of the fact that I was *sitting* there
in Gerlach when this 'fund' was set up a few years prior - and the
*strong* argument presented to the membership was to deal with NATIONAL
issues - and, now, it's 'changed' again - and is to be used for a
singular *state* issue???!!!?!!????!

There are several *genuine* questions about this whole 'fund' - but the
issue above just struck me particularly badly - as it, again, reversed
something that was represented to the membership differently.

Shortly thereafter, the meetings adjourned. There was many positive
comments as to how well the whole thing had turned out - that there was
MUCH accomplished and it was much better to have a separate meeting -
away from a rocket launch and the distractions attendant thereto - maybe
we ought to do it this way all the time.

It was at this point (with some Board members packing up their
briefcases - and one or two others already out of the room) that I asked
the 'big three' (Rogers, Kelly, Maness) for a copy of the minutes of
this meeting. All three got a severe *concerned* look on their faces.
I could figure what was going on in their heads. I stated, "Look, there
has been a LOT discussed this weekend as it concerns motor testing. I
have tried to cover it all in my notes, but I'm sure I've probably
missed a few items. The minutes will be my check that, indeed, I've
covered it all." Their facial expressions turned considerably more
relaxed and Kelly stated, "OK, but just don't discuss the contents of
the minutes until they are approved and published." I said, "OK".

Outside in the lobby afterwards, Rosenfield and I were talking a bit and
I advised him that I intended no major disruption of the Board and their
business - but that there were problems here and they had to be
addressed correctly. Gary assured me that the Board would see that in
time. We said goodbye to each other and parted. I did not approach
Rogers or Kelly with any 'goodbyes'. I had had enough of all the
tension surrounding all this and simply wanted to get home.

As an 'appendix' to all this - and coupled with my comments at the
beginning concerning the 'ritzy-ness' of the venue of this meeting, the
reader should note that the tables we sat at looked to be the same kind
of fold-up tables one would find at the Holiday Inn out on the edge of
town (at, easily, half the price). The chairs were padded - but nothing
approaching 'plush' <g>. The tablecloths were plain white. (There
*was* water, glasses and, maybe, some soft drinks). Oh, the 'view' from
this meeting room window? It looked out on the parking lot where my car
was parked.

New Orleans was over.

Pulled out in late afternoon - Sunday, 1-23-94 - heading back to
Georgia. This would put me home very late - 4 or 5 in the morning. I
*did* spend an hour or so at Stennis Space Center (where the Shuttle
main engines are tested) to put *some* kind of positive on this trip
that I paid for.

But most of the trip was (as per usual) spent in a lot of *thinking*.
It seems that every time I get around the Tripoli 'leadership', I am
either thinking of how to deal with folks acting completely
un-appropriately - or, else, trying to recover from the shock of
learning something *else* that the great majority of the membership does
not know about these guys. The latter was the 'mode of thinking' for
this return trip. I kept trying to 'accept' this thing of the Board's
'new-found' power over the bylaws (new-found to *me* at least). *WHY*
didn't they advise the membership of this?? *Did* they and I just
missed it?? And, exactly *HOW* could something like this even be
*legal*?? I mean, they *do* take people's money (for dues). Doesn't
*that* give the membership some inherent rights?? Even though I had
stated and was willing to give the benefit of the doubt about any
maliciousness on their part - it *still* was not right - to just LET
this 'power' fall in their laps and say nothing about it. Based off the
fact that Kelly was pretty quiet throughout most of these meetings - and
Rogers 'handling things', I wasn't so sure anymore about that viewpoint
of 'no maliciousness'. I *was* considerably clearer on the Rogers/Kelly
alliance. It was quite plain to me that Rogers had 'coached' Kelly to
'lay low' and let him handle it. With Rogers 'lashing' at me about the
letter I wrote him back on 9 Dec 93 - with it's 'critical' remarks about
Kelly - this only reaffirmed the fact that these two were 'in bed
together'. At least, that seemed pretty clear to me here at this hour.
I was still confused about HOW this 'change' happened - and was
committed to find out the 'legal side' of this as soon as possible.

With all this, it became pretty clear to me what the proper course of
action was. The only proper and ethical thing was to lay this all out
for the membership and submit - totally - to what they wanted. If that
included stepping down (individually OR collectively), they had to do it
- plain and simple. They had lied to the members - whether consciously
or through ignorance. There was NO other proper course. I would give
them time to see if they would do such. Based on their actions in New
Orleans, I wasn't completely sure they were capable of doing it - but I
would give them some time. And I decided that if they didn't, I was
going to blow the whole thing open.

Right there, on I-10 in the Florida panhandle on the way back from New
Orleans - I *knew* my tenure at TMT was over. There was no doubt about
it - the 'dreams' I had for a new and better motor testing program
*might* survive this first year - but anything beyond was mere 'smoke in
the wind'. I knew this because I had pretty good confidence what they
were going to do. And I *knew* what I would do in response.

---------------

Next in Part 36: The days after.

-- john.

[F Brennion]

John H. Cato, Jr. <jc...@almatel.net> wrote on Wed, 24 Jul 1996

>BTW, since I have got you 'on the phone' here, would you please answer
>one question for me?
>After I was 'let go' at TMT (several months later), Lamothe told me,
>"They had to get rid of you before you got too close to Brennion."

>Exactly *what* did he mean, Fred? Exactly *what* would I have found if
>I got a little 'closer' to you?<

>-- john.<

Now, since I had promised to check into this and respond - prior to my
announced hiatus from verbal jousting here - I exempt this reply.

So, as I promised, I called Dennis Lamothe (08-04-96 6:20pm EST) and
asked him as a matter of curiosity, if he ever said this, and that *if*
he did - then what he *meant* by it.
Lamothe was puzzled, then amused and then annoyed that Cato would made
this false claim and told me he never said anything of the sort.

So there you go, John Cato. I did all *I* could to figure it out.

And, not surprisingly, super-spewer/poster jjirvine quoted Cato's post
and challenged me as well to respond...as follows.

>> Exactly *what* did he mean, Fred? Exactly *what* would I have found if

>> I got a little 'closer' to you?

>I would chanllenge Fred to answer that. Fat chance.<

OK. I looked into it, as I promised. Lamothe said it never happened.
And now for the rebuttal I'm sure.
Will *I* get called a liar or will it be Lamothe? ( Hmmm ... (flipping
coin.))

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 36:

As stated previously, I got back to Georgia very early Monday morning -
1-24-94 - around 4 or 5 in the morning, as I recall. Naturally, the
first thing I did was go to bed. Got up after lunch and immediately
started to try to find out exactly *what* the 'deal' was on this thing I
discovered in New Orleans. Upon reviewing the Tripoli Articles of
Incorporation (in the old Tripoli Handbook), I saw reference to the
Alaska Statutes - as per the following:

---------------

ARTICLE IV
PROVISIONS FOR THE REGULATION
OF THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE CORPORATION

1. POWERS. The Corporation shall have all of the powers granted
a Corporation by AS 10.20.005 - .725. The provisions are set
forth in AS 10.20.153 (applicable to private foundations),
shall not apply to the Corporation. Notwithstanding anything
herein to the contrary, the Corporation shall exercise only
such powers as are in furtherance of the tax exempt purposes
of the Corporation as set forth in Subsection 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code as the same now exists or as it
may be amended from time to time.

2. MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION. The Corporation will be a Membership
Corporation. Membership may be held by a natural person,
another corporation, or other entity authorized by the Bylaws.

---------------

>From the above, I asked myself the question of just *what* that first
sentence actually *meant* in Paragraph 1. Well, I was going to find
out. I called the Secretary of State's Office in Atlanta and got an
address of the same office in Alaska. I drafted out a letter that very
afternoon (Monday) and it went out with the afternoon mail:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

24 January 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

The Honorable John B. Coghill
The Office of Secretary of State
State Capitol - Box AA
Juneau, AL 99811

Dear Sir,

As a matter of introduction, I am a member of the Tripoli Rocketry
Association, Inc., a non-profit membership corporation incorporated
under and within the laws of the State of Alaska. Further, I am the
chairman of the Tripoli Motor Testing Committee (as noted in this
letterhead).

I request your office's assistance in acquiring copies of Alaska State
Statute as it governs these types of Corporations under your state's
auspices. The only information I have before me is mention (in our
Articles of Incorporation) of AS 10.20.005 - .725, as it pertains to the
powers of the Corporation and provisions set forth in AS 10.20.153
(apparently applicable to private foundations). Other than these two
references, I have no other information at my disposal as to any
requirements imposed by Alaska State Statute that apply to this
Corporation. It is my desire to become acquainted with those
requirements.

Your service in providing any assistance in this matter is most
respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr. - Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee

Tripoli Rocketry Association Member # 0773

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As it turned out, Mr. Coghill was the Lieutenant Govenor - but it
eventually ended up in the correct place - the Dept. of Commerce -
Corporations Section. This, however, was not enough - I needed to talk
to a *human*.

The next day (Tuesday), I tracked down the Dept. of Commerce and placed
a call that evening (what with the time difference) and spoke for a few
minutes with a lady there and, from that, was apprised of AS 10.20.056 -
the provision that, apparently, was where this 'change' was authorized:

"Sec. 10.20.056. Bylaws. The board of directors shall adopt
the initial bylaws of a corporation. The power to adopt,
alter, amend, or repeal bylaws is vested in the board of
directors unless it is reserved to the members by the
articles of incorporation. The bylaws may contain
provisions for the regulation and management of the affairs
of the corporation not inconsistent with law or the articles
of incorporation. (§ 1 ch 99 SLA 1968)"

I actually had my party quote this over the phone while I copied it
down. This call was not long and after I hung up, I looked this over
with as sharp an 'eagle's eye' as I could. The second sentence is where
this thing happened - that it had to be reserved to the members in the
ARTICLES and not the bylaws (as was the case in Tripoli's situation).
Fundamentally a minor technicality. Wow.

Could a simple *technicality* actually hold up? Now even *more*
questions started popping up. I had to talk some more. The next
evening (Wednesday - 1-26-94), I called the DoC back - and this time
talked with a Mr. Gordon Evans. This call was considerably more
detailed and lasted somewhere in the range of 45 minutes to an hour.
Gordon pulled out Tripoli's Articles and had them before him while we
talked. One thing that Gordon told me that really scared me was his
relaying the fact that *several* non-profit corporations there in Alaska
had been 'taken over' by their boards because they utilized this very
provision (10.20.056) to change their terms of office to perpetual. Oh,
wonderful. I then asked Gordon exactly *what* that second paragraph
meant (in Tripoli's articles - above) about Tripoli being a *membership
corporation*. At this point, I was taking things in a literal sense and
it seemed to me that there was something being stated here that would
conflict with this 'situation' of reverting the Board's powers over the
bylaws back to themselves. Gordon stated that this was just some
typical 'boilerplate' stuff, as was his understanding. (However, that
is not exactly the case and we'll get to that further on). I then asked
Gordon exactly what it would take to 'correct' this anomaly - as it was
*clearly* stated in the bylaws the *intent* of where these powers should
have rested and couldn't we just straighten this out. Gordon informed
me that it would be a minor thing - just file an amendment to the
Articles - a few pages - and, as I remember, a $15 filing fee - would
take not more than a week to straighten this out. <Well, *that* is
encouraging> With some of the other questions I was posing, Gordon felt
that I might should talk with his supervisor, a Mr. Mike Monagle if I
needed to. At this point, I felt I needed to 'smoke' on things awhile
but noted who my contacts were there at the DoC and said I would get
back to them later.

<This is not good. So, there was a little 'quirk' in the Alaska
Statutes? (now correctly called the Alaska Non-Profit Corporations Act)
And the Board *appears* to have the powers?? Why in the hell didn't
they let the membership know?? It is good that it could be 'fixed'
relatively simply - but, if that is the case, *why* the hell wasn't it
FIXED already. I mean, my gosh, the original Article 11 (of the bylaws)
spelled this out VERY CLEARLY. *What* is going on here for (at least)
*someone* on the Board NOT to see just how SIMPLE this 'correction'
could be?????>

All this 'questioning' on my part was making me feel less and less
convinced that, indeed, there was no 'maliciousness' involved here (as I
mentioned to the Board in New Orleans). I mean, the solution here was
SO OBVIOUS - and to think that NOBODY on the Board could see it??? Had
the membership 'voted' on accepting this change and I simply 'missed'
it?? Well, I had been a member since (Jan '89) BEFORE this change
(1990) occurred - and had received EVERY single Tripoli Report since
v1n1 - I was *sure* I wouldn't have missed something like this?!?!? But
I just didn't know at this hour.

Later on that evening (Wed.) Ross Dunton from Magnum called. We had
talked periodically on various things - motor testing and not -
including his presence here at our launches. I don't remember anymore
the purpose of Ross' call here - but, towards the end of the
conversation (since Ross had been a long time member himself), I asked
him, "Ross, do you ever remember voting on any bylaw amendments or other
changes to them?" Ross answered, "No." "Well, I don't either, but
there were some things that surfaced at this New Orleans Board meeting
just completed - and I am not getting a too good feeling about it.
They're talking about having a membership 'vote' on acceptance of some
new bylaws and the best recommendation I can give here is to vote 'NO'
on anything they put forth. Something's not right, here." Ross said,
'OK' and we then terminated the conversation.

(There's kind of a joke going around that if you want something 'put
out' there, tell Ross and advise him not to tell anyone <g>. I don't
know if that is true - all my experiences with Ross have been fine -
but, with what was fixing to happen, Ross must have talked with a few
folks about our conversation - not that it mattered to me if he did.)

So, Ross doesn't remember about this, either. Things are *really*
beginning to get suspicious here. Is the Board going to level with the
members at large? Or, are they going to try to 'sneak one by'?

It has been a tradition here at Point 39 to have a Commemorative Launch
remembering the Space Shuttle Challenger. Every year, at 11:38 on
January 28th, Earl Cagle and myself conduct this launch. Typically, the
weekend closest to this date, I open up the airspace for the Tripoli
folks to come fly and beat the winter 'doldrums'. This was to be the
coming weekend - with the 28th on Friday. I had some conversations with
my Prefect (Paul Gennrich) here in the days preceding this weekend
launch and what I was finding out from Alaska - particularly the same
question I asked Ross - did he remember any amendments to the bylaws. I
also asked him (since he was a member even before I was) to help me go
back and see if he could find *anything* that would indicate some kind
of 'announcement' about these 'changes' that occurred.

During that weekend, we had a little 'pow-wow' here at the house and
Paul showed me a page he found in the Tripoli Report v1n2 - July 1990
from Gerald Kolb (then only a member - and NOT on the Board) - back on
page 11 in the "Opinions and Information" section:

"GERALD KOLB

"As a member of Tripoli, I would like to make a proposal to
amend the Tripoli bylaws at the annual meeting at LDRS IX
this August. The proposal would be to grant indemnification
to the officers and directors of our corporation as there
are not provisions to do so at present. Our Articles of
Incorporation do allow the Board of Directors to formulate
and adopt new By-Law [sic] changes as necessary, per
Alaska Statutes Sec. 10.20.056 (bylaws). Yes this does
differ with what our By-Laws [sic] state, but per Alaska
statutes, Articles of Incorporation take precedent over
By-Laws [sic] when there is no By-Law [sic] provision
stated in the Articles of Incorporation. I am proposing
that the Board of Directors adopt this immediately, at the
August Board of Directors meeting. With this printing in
the "Tripoli Report", it will serve as being printed in our
Corporation Journal. I am asking our Board to vote to waive
the required two printing/time frame as per our existing but
contradictory By-Laws. [sic] I will submit this to the
Board on Thursday with the anticipation of a very important
but short members meeting the same night.

---- TR v1n2 page 12 ----

"Why is indemnification needed? Right now our corporation
does not convey any legal protection to it's officers or
directors. Most all non-profit corporations offer some
protection to their Board Members. It is time that Tripoli
becomes more sensitive to the needs of it's officers.
Without protection, good people might not serve!

"I would also like to bring up our By-Law [sic] Amendment
Procedure, (it is also contradictory and is in conflict
with Alaska law) but at this point I feel that this will
have to be put on the Thursday night agenda for the Board
and Members to take action on. We have some major, major
concerns to deal with in August.

"President Rogers has also asked me to be a part of a By-Law
[sic] Review Committee. Right now two more people, Bob
Westmoreland (the new corporation agent) and Bill Wood have
also volunteered to serve on the same committee. I think a
good working number woudl be to have five people. At LDRS
we will have to make this ad-hoc group legitimate.

"This is a short version of a larger report that I will be
submitting to the complete Board of Directors this month.
In the report to the Board Members are copies of legal
correspondence with two lawyers. These lawyers gave real
legal advice on the status of Tripoli. The one from
Arizona was paid for by Tripoli member Kelly Badger. The
second one was also paid for in Alaska by Tripoli member
Bob Westmoreland. Without these members help, we would not
be as far along as we are now. This information is similar
to what past President Ed Tindell found out from his lawyer
in 1989. More will be printed on these matters later in
the year.

"Proposal:

"Article 5 (new section) Section 14. Indemnification for
Directors/Officers.

"To indemnify a Director, Officer, or former Director or
Officer of the Corporation, or a person who has served
at it's request as a Director or Officer. The Officers
and Directors shall be fully and wholly indemnified to the
extent permitted under Alaska statutes 10.20.011(14). This
will also include indemnification against charges which
are against the Director or Officer by virtue of their
performance of interpretation of those or other sections
of the By-Laws.[sic] Acts of willful misconduct, derelic-
tion of duty, voluntary criminal actions by Officers or
Directors will be exempt from indemnification.

"End proposal."

---------------

I had not seen this at this hour (29 Jan '94) (my TRs were buried
somewhere) - and it looked like, maybe, there *was* some announcement
about this 'change'. Upon further review, however, there are several
questions about this:

1) This was simply an 'OPINION' (per the section title in the TR)

2) Gerry was NOT a Board member at this time. This was NOT some
'official Board communique' laying out the change that had (apparently)
already occurred - as witnessed by Gerry's familiarity with the statutes
and such. (Note, the letter that 'opened the floodgates' on this whole
mess with TRAs bylaws was by TRA Corporate Lawyer Bob Rehbock - dated 18
June 1990).

3) Since the reader already has seen AS 10.20.056 (above), it is
obvious here that Gerry's 'understanding' that TRAs (original) bylaw
amendment provision (i.e. by the members) being in 'conflict with Alaska
law' (page 12, par. 2) is completely out in left field. There is an
(apparent) conflict between TRAs Articles and their bylaws. There is NO
'conflict' with Alaska law - and this statement is very misleading - in
that, to the uninitiated, it would appear TRA needed to 'fix' this
'violation' of law. Bull. As had already been stated, to correct the
differences between the Articles and bylaws is child's play. Again,
*why* didn't this 'opinion' not disclose this *other* alternative -
instead of nullify the bylaw provision - just FIX the Articles????

An Interesting Letter:
---------------------

The following letter is *in sequence* with the chronology - but is
something I didn't know about at the time. I first became aware of it's
existence in June of '94 when the records I had requested of the
Association was provided to me. It was written from Board member Gerald
Kolb to the rest of the Board on 1 February 1994 - a little more than a
week after the conclusion of the meetings in New Orleans.

I will comment on a few things in this letter afterwards:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

February 1, 1994

Mr. Gerald A Kolb
14137 Randall Dr.
Sterling Hts. MI 48313-3558
810-247-9207 hm 810-566-9001 hm

Dear Fellow Board Members

Enclosed in this envelope is a copy of the report that I gave to all
Tripoli Board Members (retiring and new board members) in the summer of
1990. In it you will find reports from two lawyers, letters from our
corporation agent Bob Westmoreland, and a letter of concern from myself
to the board.

You will also find copies of the Tripoli Reports that contain all of the
new or revised by-law [sic] resolutions (passed since Aug 1990) that I
could find. Tom Blazinon [sic] in a past conversation told me that to
>best of his recollection,< the Tripoli Board of Directors never passed any new by-laws [sic] from Tripoli's Incorporation (July 86) to July
1990.

John Cato does have a valid member concern in that our stated by-laws
[sic] are in conflict with the way that we conduct business. Its our
fault that we never printed an update like we should have years ago.
And its another VALID REASON for biting the bullet and finally printing
our revised and updated handbook in looseleaf form. This is not to find
any fault with Art Markowitz or Bruce Kelly in their contribution to
upgrading our handbook to date. (never rag on a volunteer when they are
doing a great job) If we decided to go to a looseleaf now, they would
probraly [sic] need some help in changing the text, etc to a new form.
Then with looseleaf, we would be able to update our current members with
every Tripoli Report (members would cut the page from the report) and
the members would have a "current Tripoli Handbook "at the ready." New
members would still need a complete up to date hand book when they
joined up with Tripoli.

On the other hand if John compromised a confidence to the board, then he
should be dealt with, and disciplined as appropriate.

Listed here are the major items that need to inserted in our >new
revised hand book.<

1. ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

The new and revised Articles of Incorporation have to be PRINTED
into the handbook now. The IRS got copies of the update in 1991.
Without the revised articles, we could not have gotten our 501-C-3
status. Dennis Lamothe, Art Markowitz, and Bruce Kelly (?) already
should have these on disc.

2. CORPORATION AGENT; BYLAWS ARTICLE I, SECTION 3. OFFICE.

Bob Westmoreland is our corporation agent. Our registered office is
at 5080 VI St, Anchorage, AK 99507.
Ph # 907-561-3659.

-------- page 2 --------

3. MEMBERS DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS; ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4. (NEW
SECTION?)

The board in 1992 passed my motion to incorporate the minimum adult
age of 18 years for members who wish to be confirmed and fly class B
motors. My idea on this was to make it part of the bylaws. Is it still
necessary, being that we have adopted 1127 ver c? What do you think?
Should we rescind this motion? see Tripoli Report Volume 4, Number 1
page 17 January 1993.

We need to decide by February 15. This is date that the board stated
was the DROP DEAD DATE for Handbook revisions to be in to Bruce Kelly.

4. AMENDMENTS; ARTICLE XI

This paragraph needs to be dropped. We need new language here
utilizing what the lawyers told us in 1990. According to our Articles
of Incorporation and Alaska Statutes, the board has the power to make
all bylaw revisions. This section should have been corrected in 1990
and never was. The bylaw review committee (that was never officially
formed) was suppose to help identify deficiencies, and recommend changes
to the board. Again we dropped the ball and fumbled.

I again (January 24,94) asked our lawyer Mr. Bob Rehbock about our bylaw
situation. He stated that "The power to change or modify Tripoli's
bylaws rests with the board of directors, since this provision was never
made a part of the Articles of Incorporation."

This new paragraph should at least allow members to petition the board
when necessary, and quote Alaska Statutes. A copy of the pages from the
Alaska Statutes are in the 1990 report that I gave to all board members.

I believe that Dennis Lamothe and Bruce Kelly are working on a bylaw
revision as I write this.

In calling the lawyer last week I discussed the Jerry Irvine lawsuit.
He stated that Jerry might have to sue us in the state of Alaska. He
will give us a better report after he has reviewed the lawsuit.

He also gave me additional ideas on how to word the proposed generic
Tripoli liability waiver. This will take some additional time to work
out. After the lawyer reviews and approved my latest changes, I will
then send it out for the board's consideration.

Sincerely

(signed by Gerald A Kolb)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reader will note on page 1 in paragraph 3 that Gerald acknowledges
that, indeed, I *did* have a 'valid member concern' about the Amendment
Article 11. Too bad they couldn't have done that publicly in New
Orleans - things would have been *considerably* different if those few
words would have been spoken.

Notice, also, in paragraph 4, that Gerald makes mention about
'compromising a confidence to the Board' - that I should be 'dealt
with'. This is indication that my conversation with Ross three days
after I got back had already got back to the Board (6 days later - as of
the date of Gerald's letter). It further is indication that there is a
'mindset' beginning to form that my agreement (not to the Board, but to
Rogers/Kelly/Maness) for not discussing the contents of these
'pre-approved' minutes I asked for is being twisted into being some kind
of 'confidence' to the Board of Directors. (I can only assume this, as
there is no other documents at my disposal that further clarifies
exactly *what* 'confidence' they were talking about.) Should I state
here that I have not seen these minutes at this point - and that I DO
NOT ever see them until April - three months later - and only seven DAYS
before the TR v5n2 arrives with the SAME minutes? We'll get to this
later.

In Gerry's 'major items' list, notice the sentence in Section 1 -
Articles:

"Without the revised articles, we could not have gotten
our 501-C-3 status."

Don't forget this sentence - it will come back to visit us.

Notice on page 2, Section 4 that Gerry indicates he was on the phone
with the TRA corporate lawyer on 1/24/96 - the next day after New
Orleans (while I was calling Atlanta, I guess). Rehbock's 'opinions'
with surface again later in our story.

The most disconcerting words in this letter are over on page 2 - in
Section 4, par. 4:

"I believe that Dennis Lamothe and Bruce Kelly are working
on a bylaw revision as I write this."

Lamothe and Kelly are 'working' on a bylaw provision as he writes
this?!?!?!? This is obviously the 'mysterious' appearance of the 'new'
Article 11 (the amendment article) that just 'popped up' in the April
'94 TR (v5n2) - one that even quotes some of AS 10.20.056 - and places
the amendment powers squarely in the hands of the Board. A 'bylaw
revision' that has NO (repeat NO) notation in the minutes showing
*proper* adoption by the Board of Directors into Tripoli's bylaws (and
this under the assumption that the Board *can* adopt bylaws). (We'll
touch on this later, also)

Remember, this letter was NOT known to me at this time. I have said
that I need to keep the chronology in correct sequence - but that should
be from *my* perspective - based on knowledge that I had before me at
each step along the way. The above letter does not hold to that - but I
feel it appropriate for the reader to know and understand not only what
*I* was thinking and operating on - but, also, what the *Board* was
thinking and operating under. Much of that is still, to this very day,
unknown to me. However, this little 'tidbit' of 'inside information'
should be held in the reader's mind as to how the *reality* of this
situation as it was shaping up.

Gerry's letter confirms that what I stated previously as to what I said
there in New Orleans is, indeed, what I said to them. It also conflicts
with what Bruce Kelly stated happened (which I brought forth back in
Part 2) - that, "I want POWER restored to the members." (again, we'll
get to this later - when this v5n3 TR comes out - June '94). I didn't
KNOW that the membership had, indeed, *lost* any power in New Orleans -
only that the Board (apparently) now *had* some amendment powers. I
only found out about the membership's loss of 'power' in the days
immediately after (noted above) when I called the State of Alaska.

---------------

Next in Part 37: TMT back up and running.

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4u9bj3$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> I exempt this reply.

Following in the TRA tradition as to rules.

> So, as I promised, I called Dennis Lamothe (08-04-96 6:20pm EST) and
> asked him as a matter of curiosity, if he ever said this, and that *if*
> he did - then what he *meant* by it.
> Lamothe was puzzled, then amused and then annoyed that Cato would made
> this false claim and told me he never said anything of the sort.

> And, not surprisingly, super-spewer/poster jjirvine quoted Cato's post

> and challenged me as well to respond...as follows.

So you rose to my challenge? Good. Glad to see facts from actual first
hand investigation, regardless of the outcome.

> And now for the rebuttal I'm sure.
> Will *I* get called a liar or will it be Lamothe? ( Hmmm ... (flipping
> coin.))

Your presumptions are irrational.

*JUST* Jerry

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Now, since I had promised to check into this and respond - prior to my
> announced hiatus from verbal jousting here - I exempt this reply.
>

> So, as I promised, I called Dennis Lamothe (08-04-96 6:20pm EST) and
> asked him as a matter of curiosity, if he ever said this, and that *if*
> he did - then what he *meant* by it.
> Lamothe was puzzled, then amused and then annoyed that Cato would made
> this false claim and told me he never said anything of the sort.
>

> So there you go, John Cato. I did all *I* could to figure it out.

Good for you, Fred.

> OK. I looked into it, as I promised. Lamothe said it never happened.

> And now for the rebuttal I'm sure.
> Will *I* get called a liar or will it be Lamothe? ( Hmmm ... (flipping
> coin.))

A little bit 'binary' again, Fred.

Is this the same 'Lamothe' that told me a week before LDRS this year that
he had heard *nothing* of Kaplow's expulsion UNTIL he got his 'cc' copy of
the 'WORD' Kelly sent Kaplow...

... and then was one of the seven 'affirmatives' in that 7-0-1-1 vote (to
blatantly violate their very own bylaws, BTW) in Orangeburg?

Is this the same 'Lamothe' that told me, back when his motors were 'in
process' at TMT when asked, "Dennis, did anybody help you with the
'engineering' of them?" and answered, "Will Meyerriecks." Then, I call
Will and ask him about this - and Will answered, "John, I don't have the
*slightest* idea about *anything* with Dennis' motors - nothing."???

Is this the same 'Brennion' that was 'buttering up to me' not 5 minutes
after I was installed as TMT chairman there at LDRS 12 - to make sure he
was 'still in the pipeline' for the inside stuff at TMT (the firing
files)...

... and then never sent the chairman (that was me, BTW) the old firing
files I requested numerous times, even thru the Secretary *and* the
'president' (oops, that was your business partner) - until I (finally)
publicly embarassed him on CIS in April '94 - 8 *months* later and
responded within (literally) hours that he as (finally) getting those
files together?

... and, lo and behold, Rogers Aeroscience announces the 'availability' of
this *newer* TMT data in their ALT software before (like, maybe, a *YEAR*
before)*ANY* members of the Tripoli organization ever sees this same
information - *even though* it was these TRA members that *PAID* for the
gathering of that data???

Was it you or Lamothe that is (now) the 'liar'?

Like I said - decidedly binary thinking. It's not 'either/or'. Could be
that *both* of you are lying.

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <320AA4...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr."
<jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

> ... and then never sent the chairman (that was me, BTW) the old firing
> files I requested numerous times, even thru the Secretary *and* the
> 'president' (oops, that was your business partner) - until I (finally)
> publicly embarassed him on CIS in April '94 - 8 *months* later and
> responded within (literally) hours that he as (finally) getting those
> files together?

I am curious, has anyone ever seen the many motor firing charts or files
that were generated on U.S. Rockets motors? I would very much like to get
the original files/charts so I can do some analysis of some older designs
vs new ones.

TIA

>
> ... and, lo and behold, Rogers Aeroscience announces the 'availability' of
> this *newer* TMT data in their ALT software before (like, maybe, a *YEAR*
> before)*ANY* members of the Tripoli organization ever sees this same
> information - *even though* it was these TRA members that *PAID* for the
> gathering of that data???

This is so unsurprising. After all Chuck is so special. Much more
special than the general membership. And besides a commercial product
should always take precidence over the needs of a mere non-profit. You
should know that. TRA does. Whether allowing reloadables before they
were legal, or allowing uncertified motors galore to fly or kissing-ass of
chuckie-poo, its all very important TRA policy.

> Like I said - decidedly binary thinking. It's not 'either/or'. Could be
> that *both* of you are lying.

PC is to call it a "disingenuous statement" not a lie. That is so
degrading to his self-esteem.

[F Brennion]

I phoned up Dennis Lamothe to ask about the remark. I respond that he
denies making it. Cato responds with:

>Good for you, Fred.<

What does this mean? I made a call to Florida to discuss Cato's allegation
and I
'reported on the SUBSTANCE of the incident.
Cato, who made the loaded innuendo, responds with a simple flippant quip,
and cannot or WILL NOT address the substance. I guess I should save myself
the trouble of investigation or attempting to refute any other charges he
makes. Why bother if the substance will dismissed with a "good for you".

>Was it you or Lamothe that is (now) the 'liar'?<

Just reverting back to namecalling again, hmm?
Getting a little bit binary yourself here, hmmm John?
Well, to borrow a phrase, "Good For You."

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uhf7t$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> I phoned up Dennis Lamothe to ask about the remark. I respond that he
> denies making it. Cato responds with:
>
> >Good for you, Fred.<
>
> What does this mean?

Good thing this will be determined on the weight of the overall evidence
and is not dependant upon one single person with a strong vested interest
in a cover up. Oh, I forgot. I do not recall. I deny making that remark
even though it is in writing and/or in contemperaneous notes.

Yea. Right.

This proves nothing Fred. But it at least shows you made some sort of
affirmative effort. Now post an audio recording of a follow up call
asking about 3-4 issues Cato raises where he (Dennis) was directly
involved.

Jerry

By the way:
a. deliver what I have paid for in advance and never received
5 alt4, 5 engmod
b. deliver my 50% of the gross proceeds of alt sales to date
c. cease making slanderous and libelous statements about me.

[F Brennion]

Jerry Irvine wrote ( to me)::

< By the way:
a. deliver what I have paid for in advance and never received 5 alt4, 5
engmod
b. deliver my 50% of the gross proceeds of alt sales to date
c. cease making slanderous and libelous statements about me.>

By the way:
a. Bogus claim relating to a 1989 transaction. Call a lawyer on this if
you want.
re: Briggs v. Morehouse 278 Ala. 213, 177 So.2d 320 (1965)
b. Bogus claim - old business. refer to past mail.
re: Alonzo v. Young 64 N.J. Super. 357, 166 A.2d 194 (1978)
c. re: Hancock v. Youngstown Storage
61 Cal.2d 511, 39 Cal.Rptr. 364, 293 P.2d 796 (1983)

Hey Jerry ....
"you have become tiresome". (Dieter, "Sprockets", SNL 1987-1991).

Since you appear to have unlimited time on your hands and since your
recent court appearance was so costly in terms of money and reputation
perhaps it would serve your future interests to get more familiar with the
*real* law; not the stuff you make up in your head and for which the guys
in the black robes tell you in so many words to shut your big yapper or be
cited for contempt.

So here's your homework assignment: go chase down the above legal
citations and get back to me via email with your findings. Lets embark on
a really tedious and drawn out analysis of all this stuff where you spend
weeks and months of research and pondering and work it all out in
mind-numbing detail.
Should I go out and buy a pallet-load of extra ZIP(tm) disks to hold all
your legal interpretations?

On a more serious note; you are wearing us all out by rechewing the same
meritless gristle and fat for what, almost 8 years now ? I wonder if
anybody besides me is tired of hearing this tripe?

Hey, 'Good For You'.
( a John Cato phrase. - used without permission. )

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 37:

We're going to diverge for just a bit - to cover an issue that deserves
further clarification - and probably this is as good a time to do so as
any. After Mr. Brennion's 'answer' to my comments previously about
Lamothe stating "They had to get rid of you...", I responded back to
Fred concerning the (premature?) release of TMT data for the RAS ALT4
software. I got an email from one individual, curious about this:

---------------

you worte:
{{{ ... and, lo and behold, Rogers Aeroscience announces the

'availability' of this *newer* TMT data in their ALT software before

(like, maybe, a *YEAR* before) *ANY* members of the Tripoli organization

ever sees this same information - *even though* it was these TRA members
that *PAID* for the gathering of that data??? }}}

This is real intersting. Are you real sure of you're facts or are you
just guessing?
Can you name 4 speicific motors that prove this?

---------------

I responded back to this individual that I was not only 'real sure', but
absolutely positive - and went on to cite *several* motors that could
have come from *NOWHERE* else but TMT - as they had never been tested
previously. I mentioned that this 'issue' surfaced over on CIS and I
probably could put my hands on the discussion. Well, after finalizing
that response, I 'cranked up' WinCIM and found those discussions -
occuring in December '94 - and, then, attached those to a 'part 2' email
and sent them on to him. From that, I figured it may be warranted to
share that information out here - and, thus, this 'divergent' part 37.

The following is that discussion on CIS - including the original
announcement. I have added yet a few more posts to that sent out
privately - for a broader perspective. There *were* a few additional
posts in this thread that are not germane to the points to be addressed
herein (talked of ways this data could be used and such).

There are a few 'rare' posts (at least, by today's standard) from Rogers
and Kelly - might should archive these, they *could* become 'collector's
items' <g>.

I comment in a few places - noted by: [comment:...... jhc] and raise
more detailed points at the end....

It should be noted that NONE of the 29mm RMS motors (and most of the
38mm RMS) - as noted in the first post below - were tested during my
year at TMT. With the exception of the J415 and K550 54mm RMS, ALL the
remaining 54 and 98mm motors WERE tested. The J135 and K185 motors were
tested by the committee AFTER I departed.

**********************************************************************

COMPUSERVE DISCUSSION CONCERNING
AVAILABILITY OF TMT DATA FROM
ROGERS AEROSCIENCE
PRIOR TO AVAILABILITY OF DATA
TO TRIPOLI MEMBERSHIP

DECEMBER 1994

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: All Saturday, December 10, 1994
11:20:15 PM
From: Arthur C. Markowitz, 75554,3140 #268959

>> ROGERS AEROSCIENCE P.O. BOX 10065
LANCASTER CA 93584-0065
(818) 349-4825
November 8, 1994

Rogers Aeroscience is pleased to announce a motor data release for the
Rogers Aeroscience ALT4 altitude prediction flight simulation program.
The data format is Rogers Aeroscience's ASCII ".EDX" files, which are
pure ASCII. Motor data for all of the Aerotech High Power RMS reloadable
motors listed in recent ads in High Power Rocketry and in the
just-released Aerotech High Power RMS catalog #94-2 are included. This
motor database includes the following motors;

RMS-29 RMS-38 RMS-54 RMS-98
------ ------ ------ ------
F37W H73J J90W K458W
F62T H123W J180T L952W
G54W H242T J275W M1419W
G104T I112J J460T M1939W
G75J I161W J135W
H128W I357T J415W
H238T I154J J800T
H97J I211W K185W
H180W I284W K550W
K1100T

This motor database has been uploaded to Library 8 under RASM01.ZIP The
ALT4 format motor data are based on thrust curve data received from
Aerotech with the thrust values ratioed so that the motor total impulse
matches the average total impulse from Tripoli Motor Testing Committee
tests of the motor. In the ALT4 motor data format the total impulse,
burn time and average thrust are defined based on the first apparent
thrust to the last measurable thrust following the convention used most
often in model rocketry and High Power rocketry.

We wanted Modelnetters to be the first to get this, before we mail
disks out to our customers. Happy (simulated) flying!

Charles E. Rogers .. 74640,522
Fred Brennion ...... 70574,2257

Rogers Aeroscience<<

**********************************************************

The above was posted November 8, 1994. With permission from Chuck and
Fred the above information was put into the following formats; Quattro
Pro for Windows 5.0 and Microsoft Excel for Windows 5.0 workbooks. This
will allow to view the data for each motor and print a thrust curve for
each motor. The files have been uploaded to Library 8 under AERORL.WB1
(QPW 5.0) and MOTORS.XLS (EXCEL 5.0). A separate copy has been
transmitted to Doug Pratt who will try and convert the info to a Lotus
format .If successful, that to will be uploaded to Library 8. The files
we upload tonight so it will probably be a few days before they are
available.

Art

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Arthur C. Markowitz, 75554,3140 Sunday, December 11, 1994
10:05:23 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #269078

A question as to how this data was verified against Tripoli Motor
Testing Data if as per a recent thread the TMT Data was never provided
to the Tripoli BOD? Who authorized use of TMT Data? Why would Tripoli
give such Data to a Manufacturer first and leave it's members with no
data?

Still waiting for Thrust Curves and questioning WHY?????????????
............................................Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Sunday, December 11, 1994
3:02:12 PM
From: Arthur C. Markowitz, 75554,3140 #269181

Tim,

>>A question as to how this data was verified against Tripoli Motor Testing Data if as per a recent thread the TMT Data was never provided
to the Tripoli BOD? Who authorized use of TMT Data? Why would Tripoli
give such Data to a Manufacturer first and leave it's members with no
data?

Still waiting for Thrust Curves and questioning WHY?????????????
............................................Tim<<

I can not answer any of the questions that you have asked because I
don't know the answers. What I do know is that in message #252793 Fred
Brennion acknowledged that he had posted the thrust data for Aerotech RL
in Library 8 for use with their (Rogers Aeroscience) ALT4 program. I
downloaded the information for use in my ALT4 program and also loaded
it into a Quattro Pro workbook my use. I checked with Rogers Aerospace
and Doug Pratt to see if this was permissible to upload my data and
they both said yes. Hence, I posted the information in both formats that
I have (Quattro Pro and Excel). Sorry I can't give you any additional
info.

Art

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Arthur C. Markowitz, 75554,3140 Sunday, December 11, 1994
5:06:26 PM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #269200

Art, I appreciate your candor and thank you for your efforts. I wish
this Info was available to those Not on CS and Not holders of Rogers
Aerospace alt4 programs. Seems to me a Tripoli Members Dues not whether
he owns Alt4 should be the governing factor as to whether the membership
gets to see, have and use TMT data.

To the Tripoli BOD I ask that you spend your time serving the membership
and not making it look like the BOD takes care of its own befor the
membership. Fred Brennion was a member of TMT and should have worked to
provide the membership with this data not his employer first!!!!!

Bruce I know you will read this and it is my hope you take proper action
on behalf of the membership. Tripoli dues paid for this data and it is
Tripoli Members who deserve the results.

Not in it for profit, but for fun!..............................Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Sunday, December 11, 1994
8:32:17 PM
From: BRUCE KELLY, 71161,2351 #269254

Tim,

You have a couple of misunderstandings that should be cleared up.

1. TRA dues do not pay for motor testing data. Each manufacturer pays
TRA a fee for each motor tested. Further, the TRA testing stand now in
use was paid for by a single donation to TRA. TRA dues have only a very
minor role, if any, in testing.

2. It has been long time policy that manufacturers have "first crack" at
the data. You will have to ask former Chairmen of the committee why.

As for now, you know full well that I have been waiting for data. I have
published every article that I have received about motor testing,
including thrust curves. The last such *article* and *thrust curves*
that I have received were published in the July '93 issue. The article
was submitted by Bill Wood, and thrust curves by Fred Brennion.

We have plans to publish a motor testing "booklet" as soon as we receive
the "stuff." As I have stated before, I can only publish what I have
received. You are asking me to take proper action. You have seen me ask
for the data. As a member, what do you suggest my next step should be?

B ("I feel your pain...") Kelly

**********************************************************************

[comment: Kelly's 'item 1' (above) is total *garbage* - see *my* ITEM 1
at the end... as for Kelly's 'item 2', this is yet more 'double-speak' -
Rogers AeroScience is NOT (repeat NOT) a 'manufacturer'. I had adopted
the policy of getting the graphic data from our testing in the hands of
the manufacturer as soon as possible - to further help allay the 'crisis
of confidence' that had built up about TMT - and Brennion was instructed
to compose his small curve format of each individual firing (from the
firing files provided by me) and forward to the manufacturer FIRST.
Brennion never did that. Had things run in any semblance of
'smoothness', this would (rapidly) have been forwarded on to the Tripoli
Report for dissemination to the membership - but I realized (especially
after the 'bylaws issue' surfaced in early '94) that I could no longer
count on Brennion to come thru for me - and assumed he was acting on
instructions from Rogers to simply impede any progress on directives on
my part. However, back to Kelly's 'item 2', it strikes me as
*exceedingly ODD* that the 'president' of the association would be SO
'in the dark' on something like this - to direct a member to contact the
chair of the committee - and this *especially so* in Kelly's case since
he had raised such a 'stink' the previous year about my 'policies' that,
"you have set in place without Board approval." (from Kelly's Jan '94
letters - posted out here previously). Again, realize that
'manufacturers' is NOT what we're talking about - we're talking about
another commericial concern utilizing this data - prior to its
availability to the TRA membership. As 'president', Kelly had an
*absolute responsibility* to assure that would not happen.

The reader will also note in some of Kelly's closing remarks that he,
once again, is denying he has anything to publish - which, from his
letter to me of 11/22/93 (posted out here previously), the reader knows
is a lie. :end comment-jhc]

**********************************************************************
Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: BRUCE KELLY, 71161,2351 Monday, December 12, 1994
9:19:10 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #269428

Bruce, I have been trying to assist you in getting the TMT data sent and
I believe by weeks end that should have happened.

As far as Mfgs. having first crack! Well perhaps this is something that
should be looked at by the BOD.

I thought the motor testing fee covered actual expenses regarding motor
testing. I didn't realize it meant that the Mfg. gets the info and the
members do not.

I am not trying to pin anything on individuals only trying to point out
that IMHO the membership is being short changed. I also think that
something should be done to correct how things are done in the future.

Lets not argue about JC not sending TB the data. That should have
happened and I believe that will shortly be corrected. Lets not argue
about Mfgs.,other than the motor Mfg., having data before the
membership. LETS DO SOMETHING TO MAKE SURE THE MEMBERSHIP GETS
INFORMATION PROMPTLY IN THE FUTURE

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Monday, December 12, 1994
2:06:25 PM
From: BRUCE KELLY, 71161,2351 #269498

Agreed!

B Kelly

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Monday, December 12, 1994
1:10:11 AM
From: Fred Brennion, 70574,2257 #269340

>>TMT Data was never provided to the Tripoli BOD<<

Bruce Lee, publisher of the Tripoli Report has it. I'm sure BOD is
aware of that. (see #268893)

>>Who authorized use of TMT Data?<

The data used by Rogers Aeroscience was only the average total impulse
figures released by John Cato and posted on Modelnet in TMT bulletins. I
don't I think needed any authorization to use that data, do you?

I thought the statement

>>based on thrust curve data received from Aerotech with the thrust
values ratioed so that the motor total impulse matches the average total
impulse from Tripoli Motor Testing Committee tests of the motor.<<

made it VERY clear how we arrived at the figures we used.

>>Why would Tripoli give such Data to a Manufacturer first and leave its members with no data?<<

The material you reference did not need any Tripoli data that was not
on Modelnet. It's not clear as to what level of data the Tripoli members
are entitled to by virtue of the fact that they partially fund TMT. TMT
is constituted to certify motors for safety and that they operate
reasonably within the thrust and time domains they claim. Beyond the
publishing of the lists, and such accompanying textual and tabular data
as the director of TMT feels is appropriate, I'd consider everything
else as bonus extras. I have long felt that TMT *SHOULD* produce thrust
curves for the membership, but not that the members are *entitled* to
them. It's not a trivial amount of work to compbine multiple tests and
produce camera-ready laser plots.

>>Fred Brennion was a member of TMT and should have worked to provide the membership with this data not his employer first!!!!!<<

What you saw in LIB 8 were .EDX files and this is Rogers Aeroscience
work, not TMT volunteer work. I told you what this was based on, and now
you realize that anyone *could* have done this. This was provided as a
freebie by Rogers Aeroscience for Modelnet members. Now it sounds like
you're insisting that Rogers Aeroscience .EDX files be made available to
all Tripoli members! What a concept!

>>Still waiting for Thrust Curves and questioning WHY?<<

Bruce Lee has some of John's thrust curves, but will be publishing
them at Tom Blazanin's direction. Some other person will be doing new
thrust curves. I volunteered to do that work inasmuch as I've already
written some software that produced the six-up thrust curves that were
published in the Tripolitan. Of course if I do that then I'll be seeing
the raw thrust curve data before any non-TMT/BOD Tripoli members in
order to work on it and produce thrust curves available to all Tripoli
members.I don't see how I or Rogers Aeroscience would get any undue
commercial advantage from that, given that the curves will be turned
over to BOD/TRA Report for publishing.

Will you be continuing to attack me because I'm part of Rogers
Aeroscience and as a commercial interest I should not be allowed
up-front access to TMT data? We might as well get this settled right
here and now because I can think of better ways to spend my time than
doing a bunch of volunteer work and then get sniped at and criticized.

**********************************************************************
[comment: notice Brennion comments that Bruce Lee at the TR has this
data (mentions it in several places). If, as Fred states, these data
are to be published, "at Tom Blazanin's direction," then *why* the hell
didn't Tom 'direct'??? I think Fred's comments about 'curve data' being
some kind of 'icing on the cake' to the membership that *paid* for it is
about as f**ked up a mode of thought as is possible for a human being -
but it only further reinforces my points about the arrogance and conceit
of these guys. The conflict of interest here is so blatant and sick as
to cause nothing but great gobs of wretching, IMHO. -- jhc]
**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Fred Brennion, 70574,2257 Monday, December 12, 1994
9:19:19 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #269429

Fred, I apologise if you feel I attacked you. I did not mean for that to
happen. I am trying to point out that the membership is being
shortchanged by not having this data. I own all RAS products and am
thankful for the updates as I also am on CS. What I want is for the
membership to gain by their affiliation with Tripoli. I feel this does
not happen as often as it could and am vocal about it. RAS and yourself
were mentioned in my post only to point out that the data said not to
exist, does exist by people capable of providing it to the entire
membership. I'd hate to tell a rocketeer that he couldn't fly an H-220
silverstreak in an EZ-I because its initial impulse is too high without
being able to show him the thrust curve. Don't you think the membership
deserve to see the information after 14 months of testing data? Don't
you think the bickering here on CS would be better time spent publishing
the data? I'll gladly put myself alongside you as having most or some of
the data in my hands. Still the membership as a whole needs, wants and
deserves better than they are getting. Again my apologies if I was out
of line and made you feel I was attacking you, I didn't mean for that to
happen

......................................Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
4:55:28 AM
From: CHUCK ROGERS, 74640,522 #270000

Dear Tim:

I feel the need to respond to your recent posts on the 'net commenting
on the release by Rogers Aeroscience of ALT4 format motor data files for
the entire line of Aerotech High Power Reloadable Motors. You should be
aware of the following facts;

1. The thrust curve data were received direct from Aerotech. Permission
was received from Aerotech to use and release the data.

2. No TMT thrust curve data was used. The only data from TMT motor
testing used was the average total impulse.

3. As was pointed out in the original post, the TMT average total
impulse data were used to ratio the thrust curve values received from
Aerotech so that the resulting thrust curves would match the TMT average
total impulse value for a given motor.

4. The TMT average total impulse data used were primarily based on data
published in the January 1994 Tripoli Report. Additional average total
impulse data were obtained from TMT news releases posted to Modelnet.
As all of this information was freely published in public forums no
permission was required to use the data.

5. Despite the fact that Fred and myself have been members of the TMT
Committee, and myself being a Tripoli Board member and past Tripoli
President, NO TMT Committee "insider" information was used to put
together this motor database. All information was received direct from
the manufacturer or was published information available to anyone who
gets the Tripoli Report or who is on CompuServe.

Your posts remind me of the old saying about how no good deed goes
unpunished. What exactly did we do wrong here? Fred and I did a bunch
of work creating what certainly is the best Aerotech High Power motor
database for rocket simulation programs available, and then GAVE IT AWAY
on CompuServe! This motor database is only Rogers Aeroscience
proprietary in the sense that we would like to get credit for it as it
is copied into various other formats. Note how in an accompanying post
that other "freeware" program authors will be adding this motor data to
their programs using motor data file conversion programs like Gary
Crowell has written. Fred and I decided long ago that we would adopt an
"open" data file architecture on Rogers Aeroscience altitude prediction,
drag coefficient, and rocket motor simulation programs; i.e., our input
and output files are text files that can be copied, pulled into word
processors, or even used as input files for other altitude prediction
programs. Note that these "freeware" programs in a sense are potential
competition for our product. We are selling a product that they are
giving away. Perhaps the best business strategy would have been to
point out that one of the reasons we feel our altitude prediction
program is the best is that we have the best Aerotech motor database,
and then viciously attack, threaten with a lawsuit, etc., anyone that
tries to copy it and use it with other programs. I guess we blew it by
giving the motor database away for free and practically encouraging
other program authors to use it!

The way you apparently see it Fred and I used our TMT Committee
"insider" status to get a major competitive advantage in our market.
Again, that's just not true since no "insider" information was used. If
it is not perfectly clear already, I encourage you to download the motor
files, copy them to a disk and give copies to every rocketeer you know
that has a computer and is running altitude prediction rocket simulation
programs.

There was only ONE consideration that we took into account on deciding
whether to post this motor database to Library 8. Fred and I talked at
length about how somehow, someway, someone was going to turn our release
of this data into some kind of political football for the usual urinary
Olympiad combined with the time honored practice of rocket political
point scoring. For this reason, and this reason ALONE, we almost didn't
post this data to the 'net. Who needs the hassle? We will be
separately mailing this motor data out on disks to our recent customers
anyway. Something I've noticed on Modelnet is that when someone flames,
the lurkers just sit quietly back and let it go unresponded to when
frankly some of those posting messages need to be deservedly "thrown to
the mat" in the figurative sense. If someone keeps trying to pull
Rogers Aeroscience into the latest motor testing controversy of the
moment we will probably have to think twice about posting our future
motor database additions to the 'net.

During my five years as Tripoli President the issue was often raised
about how Tripoli Board members who were manufacturers get some kind of
benefit for their businesses by being Board members or officers of the
Corporation. Certainly in my case this has always been total hogwash.
How much work do you think I got done on new programs, new products for
Rogers Aeroscience during the six months of the Tripoli By-Laws
controversy? Tim, after the dust settled at LDRS do you know how many
Tripoli members volunteered for the By-Laws Rewrite Committee? Zero.
That's right, ZERO. Well, to correct myself, there was one
semi-volunteer, the Committee Chair Mike Platt. Before anyone starts a
new thread reviving the By-Laws issue, I challenge them to put in the
first sentence of their post why THEY didn't volunteer for the
Committee. (The exception of course are those who were most vocal on
BOTH sides of the issue who were discouraged from volunteering for the
Committee). One can't really complain about all this since one makes
the choice to run for office. Just don't claim that me and my partners'
business benefits from our Tripoli connections. Overall being a former
officer and current Board member for Tripoli has been a definite net
loss for my business.

As Fred said in his recent post, let's settle this right now once and
for all. Are you going to be continuing to attack Fred and I because as
Rogers Aeroscience we are a commercial interest? I am going to continue
to be a Board member for the remainder of my term, Fred would like to
continue on the TMT Committee, he and I would like to continue posting
motor databases to the 'net to be given away for free, and motor testing
controversies will probably go on forever, so this is going to be a
continuing issue.

So Tim, in light of my explanations above, what's your beef with Fred
and I?

Chuck Rogers

Rogers Aeroscience

**********************************************************************

[comment: I am simply not going to waste any time 'clarifying' Mr. Poo's
comments above. This guy hardly qualifies as being a member of the
human race and trying to 'speak English' to him is just so much waste of
time. I feel his 'ego problems' are perfectly clear without any
elaboration on my part. I will make mention that he (along with
Brennion) comment about 'ratioing' the data - which is pure manipulation
of the information. If that is the kind of 'data' he wants to provide
his customers, fine - but, since Brennion was also responsible for that
'TMT Book' (initially in 'draft' form at LDRS 14 and (I guess) finalized
for handout at LDRS 15), I have a hard time accepting (knowing Fred as I
do) that he would waste the time doing this *twice* - once for RAS
('ratioed') and once for TMT ('true') - which means the TMT book does
NOT follow as accurately as they *should* the actual firing data
captured off the stand. -- jhc]

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: CHUCK ROGERS, 74640,522 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
7:16:14 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270017

Chuck, I didn't volunteer for the ByLaws Committee because I was one of
the vocal parties and felt Bruce had excluded me. I also feel I just
might have a conflict of interest! This does not however preclude me now
or in the future from commenting on the ByLaw issues when I feel it is
appropriate.

You perhaps missed my post that I didn't mean to attack Fred or RAS. And
now I'll add you o that apology.

I own RAS software and am thankful for the data being available. My beef
is that it is available to a limited number of TRA Members and I feel
the General Membership has been shortchanged.

All that I see needs to be done is for this data to be provided in its'
entirity to the membership. It's been TOO long that personalities are
interfering with membership rights and needs.

Again, I apologize if you felt I was out of line. I didn't mean to place
a pointer at RAS. Only used it as an example as to how the general
membership still does not have what they deserve................Tim

**********************************************************************

To keep the message lengths reasonable, this will continue in Part 38.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 38: Continuation of Part 37...

**********************************************************************

(continuation of...)

COMPUSERVE DISCUSSION CONCERNING
AVAILABILITY OF TMT DATA FROM
ROGERS AEROSCIENCE
PRIOR TO AVAILABILITY OF DATA
TO TRIPOLI MEMBERSHIP

DECEMBER 1994

**********************************************************************
(this post is duplicated from Part 37 - for continuity)

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: CHUCK ROGERS, 74640,522 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
7:16:14 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270017

Chuck, I didn't volunteer for the ByLaws Committee because I was one of
the vocal parties and felt Bruce had excluded me. I also feel I just
might have a conflict of interest! This does not however preclude me now
or in the future from commenting on the ByLaw issues when I feel it is
appropriate.

You perhaps missed my post that I didn't mean to attack Fred or RAS. And
now I'll add you o that apology.

I own RAS software and am thankful for the data being available. My beef
is that it is available to a limited number of TRA Members and I feel
the General Membership has been shortchanged.

All that I see needs to be done is for this data to be provided in its'
entirity to the membership. It's been TOO long that personalities are
interfering with membership rights and needs.

Again, I apologize if you felt I was out of line. I didn't mean to place
a pointer at RAS. Only used it as an example as to how the general
membership still does not have what they deserve................Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry

To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Wednesday, December 14, 1994

8:15:04 AM
From: Peter Olivola, 70363,1201 #270024

I've been fighting the urge to say something to you on this issue that
would probably force Doug Pratt to kill the message.

The continuous carping about conflict of interest would seem to be a far
bigger problem for you than for the manufacturers involved. Do you
fully accept Chuck and Fred's explanation for how the RAS data files
were created? If you don't then it's time to put up. If you do, it's
time to shut up.

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry

To: Peter Olivola, 70363,1201 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
9:48:03 AM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270038

Peter, I've apologised to Fred, Chuck and RAS. I'll apologise to all
here on CS. I will not however allow you to tell me to shut up! Thats as
childish as what I did by involving RAS. I shouldn't have and you
shouldn't have.

I restate that as a member of Tripoli I want copies of TMT Data. The 1st
firings from the new team are 15 months old and the membership deserves
them.

I believe this discussion on CS has begun the process to do exactly
that. Sorry if you don't agree. ....................Tim

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 Wednesday, December 14, 1994

10:22:16 AM
From: Peter Olivola, 70363,1201 #270047

You're being called on the way you raised the issue of the release of
the TMT data. Chuck and Fred are in no way responsible for the actions
of the TMT Chair. That issue was settled at LDRS. With a little luck,
the latest bruhaha between John and Bruce will result in the resolution
you seek, but that still has nothing to do with RAS. What you did was
to try to scapegoat someone for a problem you have no control over. You
don't like being told to shut up? Okay, try the Eagles prescription and
"Get Over It."

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry
To: CHUCK ROGERS, 74640,522 Wednesday, December 14, 1994

11:13:18 AM
From: Doug Pratt, Chief Sysop, 76703,3041#270055

Chuck, I am VERY appreciative of the fact that you have chosen to
support your customers by placing this data here. And I commend you for
making the data open to other software authors. Your actions should
generate confidence and goodwill among your potential customers. That is
one reason why I have recommended your software to others without
reservation...the other reason being that it works.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Tim is upset
because the TMT data didn't get published. The ALT4 data has absolutely
nothing to do with that fact. Tim has apologised to Fred (and to you, I
see). He can now go argue with Bruce (part of the job description of
President, after all) and leave you guys out of it, as I see it.

**********************************************************************

Subj: ALT4 IN QPW AND EXCEL Section: Sport Rocketry

To: Doug Pratt, Chief Sysop, Wednesday, December 14, 1994
76703,3041 2:31:13 PM
From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270108

Thanks Doug, I am truely sorry I used an example I shouldn't have. I
hope the parties envolved accept it.

I've had some E-mail between Bruce and myself and his frustration echo's
mine. I believe Bruce and John will work together to resolve this
shortly. For this I'm most gratefull and know the membership will
benefit.

I think perhaps off line readers cause some of the conflict here on CIS.
I know that from this point forward I will check responses prior to
uploading comments. Chuck probably only got my first message and was
unaware that I had erred and tried to correct it while he composed his
response. If this be the case I'm understanding.
Tim

**********************************************************************
-- END of CIS Discussion --
(a couple of other 'lesser import' posts deleted -jhc)
**********************************************************************

As far as more detailed analysis of this situation, I offer the
following. First is to put to rest the 'point' Kelly brought up about
*where* the money comes from to do the work of TMT - and, specifically,
his 'fantasy' about motor testing fees accomplishing *anything* even
remotely related to amortizing TMT expenses.

ITEM 1):

The following is a direct copyover of my 'Receipts1' file in my computer
- showing total monies received during '93-'94.

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
TESTING FEE RECEIPTS

DATE MANUF DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ck # mailed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
9-23-93 AEROTECH Packing Slips #34651, 34654, 225.00 5363 *
& 34655
(Note: PS #34653 (UN1.4c rms)
- no fees)

10-18-93 VULCAN from MAGNUM for G200 (3) 15.00 1249 3/94
(invoice # 32880012
- recvd 10-21-93)

2-4-94 VULCAN from MAGNUM for L750 (1) 15.00 1515 3/94

2-15-94 ROCKETFLITE fees for G160 (regular) 15.00 1696 3/94

12-21-94 AEROTECH for 7/30/94 test session 30.00 6284 12/94
(check received with motors
- forwarded to D. Lamothe
w/ TMT wrapup - 12-22-94)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This totals up to exactly $300.00. There was some outstanding debt
($50-$100 or so) from AeroTech - as total fees paid were less than
number of motor types tested throughout my administration. Mr. Blazanin
will have to answer to the final accounting of this.

The '*' under the 'mailed' column for the first entry ($225) was put
there because, to the best of my recollection, I *hand delivered* this
to Lamothe at the 9/23/93 test session (which Lamothe attended, as the
reader will recall).

As far as expenses incurred during this year ('93-'94), there were FIVE
(5) 'Expense Reimbursement Requests' (ERRs) submitted my myself - which
included *any* direct expense assumed by myself. The totals of these 5
ERRs amounted to $1298.59 - which leaves $998.59 that were, indeed,
covered from funds that could only come from *member dues*.

The *FUNDAMENTAL* purpose of charging 'testing fees' to manufacturers is
nothing more than to build a reserve fund to cover damage to the test
stand from motor malfunctions (CATOs and such) - which, indeed, DID
happen in an October 1994 test session (after I was 'let go'). This
'expense' caused the total destruction of the load cell (amoung other
extreme damage) that FAR exceeded the $300 in that 'fund' at the time.
This 'explosion' of a K motor left things like *pieces* of ball bearings
(from the carriage) lying around and warped the main cradle that
supports the motors. That $300 was completely wiped out with this one
incident.

And, of course, we have the printing expense if just putting together
this 'TMT Book' which is 'further up' than direct, day to day expenses
of running TMT.

ITEM 2):

As far as Rogers AeroScience getting this 'data' from AeroTech, the
reader should take note of a particular item from TMT's 'Postal Log'.
The '29c' and '23c' columns simply account for the total number of
stamps of that denomination used in a particular mailing (yes, I can
account for EVERY stamp purchased and used during that year). This
indicates 5 ounces of postage - which is more than 'just a few' curves.
The reader will note that this is about 5 months prior to the 'release'
(noted above) of the RAS data on CompuServe.

Date 29c 23c Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7-18-94 1 4 Thrust curves to Aerotech (all to date)

The arguments by Rogers and Brennion as to 'getting this data from
AeroTech' do not tell the true story here. I will let Mr. Rosenfield
answer (if he is so motivated) as to exactly *what* he provided to
Rogers AeroScience - but can attest to the fact that Gary and I had
several discussions during that year and he talked of taking some of our
data and 'selecting data points' for curve generation in Excel for
AeroTech's use in their 'marketing literature'. Regardless of what
Rogers AeroScience actually *had* to go on, there is no doubt that this
information, orginally, came from TMT - of that I am certain.

It is further beyond comprehension that, with Mr. Brennion actually
*being on the committee* and actually *having in his possession* copies
of the *original* firing files, that this 'information' would have been
'ignored' by RAS. Their 'attempts' at not presenting a conflict of
interest are weak, at best - and non-existent, if truth be told.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The absolute bottom line on this is, indeed, the data used by RAS came
DIRECTLY from activities of TMT - total impulses, the data points on the
curves, the lot. With *both* the RAS individuals *highly involved*
within the TRA organization - and one a 'director', no less - I will
simply yawn when they 'crawfish' around with their 'first grade'
arguments about being so 'lily white' with no conflicts of interest.
The biggest truckload of garbage I have ever heard.

While Rogers makes mention that he and Fred 'discussed' this, the
questions that can be raised as to the 'business judgment' of these
dudes are *legion*. (BTW, did anybody notice the not-so 'veiled' threat
about not doing this again - if further 'questions' are asked?? This is
absolutely *typical* for Rogers - and yet further substantiation of his
'ego problem'.

Mr. Eiszner went OUT OF HIS WAY to apologize to these folks - and he had
NO reason to even do so. Tim was RIGHT on the mark with his questions
and 'curiosities'.

Naturally, Mr. Olivola would 'chime in' with *his* 'wisdom' on the
subject. Mr. Olivola only further exhibits his TOTAL lack of
comprehension by such.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We'll move onward with our chronology in Part 39.

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <320D37...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr."
<jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

> From: CHUCK ROGERS, 74640,522 #270000

>Fred and I decided long ago that we would adopt an
> "open" data file architecture on Rogers Aeroscience altitude prediction,
> drag coefficient, and rocket motor simulation programs; i.e., our input
> and output files are text files that can be copied, pulled into word
> processors, or even used as input files for other altitude prediction
> programs.

Er, uh... Jerry Irvine decided to do it this way and instructed Fred
Brennion to incorporate this into the menu driven and file read/save
versions of alt then known as alt3. Fred has always been a proponent of
copy protection schemes, even intrusive ones, and I have always been a
proponent of open systems. I am the one who insisted the motor and rocket
files be ascii and I alone am the one who determined the final contents of
those files. Fred Brennion worked out the specific line counts and
character spacing.

Once again "Rogers Aeroscience" falsifies the facts to take credit for
Jerry Irvine's work product.

> During my five years as Tripoli President the issue was often raised
> about how Tripoli Board members who were manufacturers get some kind of
> benefit for their businesses by being Board members or officers of the
> Corporation.

For example, like getting all their transportation, room, food and phone
expenses paid for by the association for their attendance at meetings to
make the laws to permit their business to operate? Like AT (Gary
Rosenfield) specifying in 1125 that only mixers with non-moving parts
shall be used, thus eliminating 90% of the mizers in use by other
companies including the professional propellant mixer used by Vulcan
systems?

Little things like that.

> From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270017
> All that I see needs to be done is for this data to be provided in its'
> entirity to the membership. It's been TOO long that personalities are
> interfering with membership rights and needs.
>
> Again, I apologize if you felt I was out of line. I didn't mean to place
> a pointer at RAS. Only used it as an example as to how the general
> membership still does not have what they deserve................Tim

Great observation, repeatedly sidestepped by Rogers, Kelly, Brennion.

Just Jerry

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> Like AT (Gary
> Rosenfield) specifying in 1125 that only mixers with non-moving parts

> shall be used, thus eliminating 90% of the mixers in use by other

> companies including the professional propellant mixer used by Vulcan
> systems?

Yeah, but with a *paint shaker*, who needs 'professional' planetary mixers
anyway.

I wonder how long (and loud) Morton-Thiokol would laugh at that. :-)

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uj4fv$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote wierdly:

Useless cites deleted.

> in the black robes tell you in so many words to shut your big yapper or be
> cited for contempt.

The only one threatened with contempt at this trial was Kosdon and his
attorney Weiss. In fact the only motion for mistrial was when Kosdon
violated the trial rules.

Weiss was also proud of repeatedly citing stricken documents in pleadings,
oratory and citations. It will bite him.

> I wonder if
> anybody besides me is tired of hearing this tripe?

I do not wonder.

Jerry

Get your facts straight.

[F Brennion]

John Cato, never one to let a resolved issue rest in peace, is trying to
bore everyone to tears with something that was discussed on Modelnet (a
now-defunct CompuServe newsgroup) in the fall of '94.

Some interesting snippets:
1. Tim Eiszner apologizes to Olivola, to me, to Chuck, to Rogers
Aeroscience and the Modelnet group for this childish stunt.

> To: Peter Olivola, 70363,1201 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
9:48:03

From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270038
Peter, I've apologised to Fred, Chuck and RAS. I'll apologise to all here

on CS. I will not however allow you to tell me to shut up! I shouldn't

have and you shouldn't have.<

===========
Now Cato goes on:

> I will simply yawn when they 'crawfish' around with their 'first grade'

arguments about being so 'lily white' with no conflicts of interest. The
biggest truckload of garbage I have ever heard.<

Wrong. We were lily white. We knew for sure that a disaffected crank with
an axe to grind would try to find an issue to try to climb our hump with
eventually. The certainty of that event made us careful not to step over
the line with respect to releasing TMT motor data to RAS customers in a
method or time frame that would call up ethical questions regarding RAS
and TRA. So, you insult our intelligence. - But then you *meant* to,
didn't you? :-)

>While Rogers makes mention that he and Fred 'discussed' this, the
questions that can be raised as to the 'business judgment' of these dudes
are *legion*.<

Go ahead and raise them, big boy! You're preaching in a virtually empty
tent. Or course Jerry Irvine will chime in....along with someone who will
say "could we just stop all this personal crap and just talk about flying
rockets" and someone else will say ".... boy, if this is what TRA is all
about then I want no part of it...". (My responses to these predictable
objections should be well-known by now.)

<Mr. Eiszner went OUT OF HIS WAY to apologize to these folks - and he had
NO reason to even do so.>

Well that's YOUR opinion. The apologizOR felt he *did* have something to
apologize for (afterall HE knew what he meant by his allegations) and It's
pretty rare to find people apologizing publically for a thing they should
NOT be apologizing for. HE knew what he meant by what he alleged .... and
HE felt he had reason to apologize.

> (BTW, did anybody notice the not-so 'veiled' threat about not doing this
again - if further 'questions' are asked?? This is absolutely *typical*

for Rogers ...>

This is actually not Chuck's decision. This is MY decision. I spent a a
large amount of time doing the thrust curves that were released at LDRS in
Orangeburg. This time could have been better spent concentrating on
upgrading Rogers Aeroscience products...but noooooooo. not ME. I must have
some kind of self-destructive compulsion to have this issue surface again
so I can get re-attacked on a 2-year old TRA conflict-of-interest issue by
a person who isn't even a Tripoli member.

I really don't know where Cato is coming from by resurfacing this issue
and re-raising a position that was discredited in 1994. It was erroneous
then; it's erroneous and irrelevant now.

[F Brennion]

Jerry writes:

>Fred (Brennion, of Rogers Aeroscience) has always been a proponent of
copy protection schemes...<

Hmmmm..yes, but only in the circumstance where you're going to be paying
for full page ads to merchandise a serious product and support it by
returning phone calls all over the English speaking world.
Here's a heads up -- It takes $money$ to pay these bills! If you let
anybody who feels like it copy the program you wind up being unable to run
ads and return phone calls because the sales dry up since bootleg copies
are everywhere and the revenue dries up.
Most of our customers are fine professional people I respect their ethics
- but by applying the same standard to everyone equally I don't have to be
judgemental about who can be trusted and who can't. Anyone who has a
problem with this is simply cheerfully advised to find an alternative
product. The last refund I made over this problem was a guy in Marlboro
Mass during the Bush administration.

<..., and I have always been a proponent of open systems.>
Yeah, sure. And I've always been a proponent of the widespread use of
computerized fingerprint analysis software systems .... but it's out of
my area of expertise - so I don't *do* it. I just *talk* about it.

>Once again "Rogers Aeroscience" falsifies the facts to take credit for
Jerry Irvine's work product.<

Too funny!! Irvine's work product is blather, threats, xerox copies of
four-year-old catalogs, and vague promises; --- not rocket kits, not
rocket motors and not computer code. His latest tack is to imply that U.S.
Rockets (or some successor rocket company) will happen this fall. I think
this is all bs and wishful dreaming, but if it isn't .... the *upside*
will be that Jerry's attempt to promote this enterprise and keep it afloat
will be provide some interesting entertainment for a couple of years - and
we could sure use some!

He would be well advised to stick to something he knows about, like term
insurance or raising money to give to secretive paranoids for free energy
machines.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4um41n$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> tent. Or course Jerry Irvine will chime in.

Don't bait me Fred.

> upgrading Rogers Aeroscience products

[co] Authored by Jerry Irvine and delivered to Fred Brennion personally by
ONLY Jerry Irvine.

Jerry

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Hmmmm..yes, but only in the circumstance where you're going to be

> paying for full page ads to merchandise a serious product ...

You guys are *paying* for those ads?

Good for you, Fred!

-- john.

p.s. Wouldn't happen to have a few cancelled checks to prove it, would
you?

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Wrong. We were lily white.

RAS? Lily white? Oxymoron? Why not!

> The certainty of that event made us careful not to step over
> the line with respect to releasing TMT motor data to RAS customers
> in a method or time frame that would call up ethical questions

^^^^^^^^^^
> regarding RAS and TRA.

"TIME FRAME"??????????????????????????????????????

Then why, pray tell, didn't you LISTEN to your own conclusions and
advice and *hold back* until this information was disseminated to the
TRA membership???? -- or --

Why, pray tell, wouldn't you, as a *member* of TMT - and your 'buddy',
as a *director* within TRA ring up 'mr. prez' and tell him to 'git
cracking' to get that information out - in parallel with RAS releases -
I mean, old Mr. Woocey *was* the chairman of the publication committee -
who better to move this thing along, right?

I seems exceedingly odd that even *you* guys would 'buy into' 'prez's'
lie about him not having this information - since Chuckie *did* get that
same 11/22 letter I (and the rest of the Bored received) - there it was,
in black and white, "I have received".

> So, you insult our intelligence.

What did you 'guys' do to *our* 'intelligence'? Rape it??

> - But then you *meant* to, didn't you? :-)

I 'meant' to illustrate a blatant example of a conflicting situation.
What did *you* mean to do?

> Go ahead and raise them, big boy! You're preaching in a virtually
> empty tent.

I think I've said it before.... "you wish"... but, then, your 'myopia'
is understandable.

> Well that's YOUR opinion. The apologizOR felt he *did* have something
> to apologize for (afterall HE knew what he meant by his allegations)
> and It's pretty rare to find people apologizing publically for a
> thing they should NOT be apologizing for. HE knew what he meant by
> what he alleged .... and HE felt he had reason to apologize.

It's called "character", Fred. You could learn something from the
example.

> This is actually not Chuck's decision. This is MY decision. I spent a

> large amount of time doing the thrust curves that were released at
> LDRS in Orangeburg. This time could have been better spent
> concentrating on upgrading Rogers Aeroscience products...

And that, right there, is *exactly* the reason *why* you should
disassociate yourself from TMT - you will *always* be in a conflict of
interest situation - ALWAYS and, regardless of *any* attempt to not
present even the *appearance* of a conflict, you simply canNOT do it.
The most *gifted* person I could imagine could not do it. You are *far*
down that 'list' of 'potential gifted ones' (no, Bruce and Chuckie
aren't even ON it)

> but noooooooo. not ME. I must have
> some kind of self-destructive compulsion to have this issue surface
> again so I can get re-attacked on a 2-year old TRA
> conflict-of-interest issue by

You didn't raise this 'two year old' issue, Fred - I did. And that was
due to the fact that it further illustrates the points I am making -
that these 'cozy' little 'arrangements' that so permeate the TRA
organization are accomplishing nothing more than robbing the membership
of things they are DUE. And will continue to do so until they are
purged.

> a person who isn't even a Tripoli member.

Whatever affiliation I have now has NOTHING to do with who I was
affiliated with back then. This kind of 'argument' that, once I decided
to leave, my brain must have been 'sucked dry' is a sad form of 'logic'
- especially coming from a programmer. It almost indicates that you and
your 'buddies' don't even UNDERSTAND why I left.

> I really don't know where Cato is coming from by resurfacing this
> issue and re-raising a position that was discredited in 1994.
> It was erroneous then; it's erroneous and irrelevant now.

Based on the private comments I have received, it would appear others do
not share your view of things (nor do I). Here, once again, there
appears to be this erroneous 'mindset' that, if you can just 'duck it'
in the short term, you're home free. Same thing as Kelly asking the
'membership' (re: the bylaws fiasco), "WHY didn't they raise this three
years ago??" Now, talk about *irrelevancy*!!! Time will not erase
wrongdoings or failures of judgment - and it simply astounds me that
some of the 'mental processes' going on here can *RATIONALLY* reach such
a conclusion. This is *especially* so, in that it is not some isolated
little indiscretion - just one more 'piece' of the puzzle - a 'puzzle'
that keeps getting bigger with every passing day.

It reminds me of a simple example of a kid - caught stealing candy,
then, as a teenager hotwiring a car for some joyriding, etc. etc. Now,
when the bank is robbed, or a woman raped, or someone is killed, law
enforcement will simply wipe his name off the list of possible suspects
- "because those things are in the past." Is that *really* how you
'think' on these things, Fred?

However, since I *know* your mental abilities (at least) are beyond such
infantile levels (by how much may be a topic of debate), it seems pretty
obvious what this 'process' *really* is all about. Yet further examples
of trying to lead others into the conclusion you would desire them to
reach. I, frankly, resent even the attempt at such 'sick' paternalism -
as do others. I think this is where the term, "insulting one's
intelligence" really comes to the fore.

=======

Fred, RAS had as much right to the TMT information as any other TRA
member - as granted by the provisions of IRS Pub. 557 for 501(c)3
corporations. Heck, my dead dog can request and *must* be granted this
information. Where RAS failed (and failed miserably) is in the fact
that 'they' had NO *ethical* right to the use of that information prior
to the members that actually *PAID* for its gathering and generation.
You say this 'timing topic' was discussed. Well, THAT, right there, was
enough to reach the proper *ethical* conclusion - the mere fact that it
even *entered* your mind is enough to reach the correct decision. What
further damns your acts is that, after considering this, RAS *still*
decided to act as they did - and (literally) proves my point - both the
impropriety of it and the conflict of interest that is so obvious about
it.

I will grant you a 'modicum' of ethics, Fred. Considering the 'carnage'
on Chuck and Bruce's 'roadside of life', I will NOT grant them
*anything* - because there is nothing there but numerous 'skeletons' and
'rotting flesh'. How you put up with such an individuals is beyond me.

Argue all you want that you 'got' this from AeroTech. No, you didn't -
you (RAS) *GOT* it from TMT - which means you *took* it from the Tripoli
membership - and you *used* it to *enhance* RAS's standing in the
commercial sector - which, as stated previously, means you failed in
your responsibility to the Association that you were a part of. Want to
be 'lily white'? Fine. RESIGN from TMT (and get Chuckie to RESIGN from
the BoD) - lobby strongly for this kind of stuff to RAPIDLY be
disseminated (to the membership, that is) - write a 'hot letter' to the
Tripoli Report if your 'president' doesn't stand for (and demand) that
the member's rights and privileges come FIRST - above *ALL* else. Then
I (and others) will listen when you 'claim' innocence. The Devil may
say that his tail is not pointed. But even folks bordering on catatonia
can see different.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Getting a little bit binary yourself here, hmmm John?

Well, we *all* have our weak moments. I'm sure you can understand.

> Why bother if the substance will dismissed with a "good for you".

Well, try this:

Woof!

[F Brennion]

Jerry Irvine wrote (with respect to the Rogers Aeroscience ALT software)

[co] Authored by Jerry Irvine and delivered to Fred Brennion personally by
ONLY Jerry Irvine.
Jerry<

Oh yes, you did DELIVER it to me - but you didn't write it. Packrat that I
am, I still have this disk and other disks and papers from that era. And
written right on the label in nylon-tip pen in your very OWN handwriting
is
... Mmmmmmm.let me see....oh yeah, here it is:
ALT2, CD, CP
IBM 360K (c) 1984 Chuck Rogers

Gee, why would you have written that on there? I mean if you wrote this
software ... like if you were the author and all...shucks, wouldn't you
want
some credit and wouldn't you want to want to put your OWN name on it?
Nowhere does it say (c) 1984 Jerry Irvine or (c) 1984 California
Rocketry
Publishing.

It says (c) 1984 Chuck Rogers. Both on the label - which you wrote
yourself -
and in all the programs. Would it help your recollection of who wrote this
software if I mail you a xerox copy of the disk label for handwriting
analysis
before I return it to the safe?

[F Brennion]

John Cato wrote:
<You guys are *paying* for those ads?
Good for you, Fred!
-- john.
p.s. Wouldn't happen to have a few cancelled checks to prove it, would
you?>

What difference would it make if I took the trouble to send you copies of
cancelled checks? Would you apologize on this forum for for making an
innuendo that turned out to be provably false - or woud I just get another
"Good for you, Fred" ?

[Jack Wiker]

F Brennion wrote:
>

>
> Go ahead and raise them, big boy! You're preaching in a virtually empty

> tent. Or course Jerry Irvine will chime in....along with someone who will
> say "could we just stop all this personal crap and just talk about flying
> rockets" and someone else will say ".... boy, if this is what TRA is all
> about then I want no part of it...". (My responses to these predictable
> objections should be well-known by now.)
>

Actually, I have enjoyed reading all of these arguments...

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4ums5q$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> Jerry Irvine wrote (with respect to the Rogers Aeroscience ALT software)
>
> [co] Authored by Jerry Irvine and delivered to Fred Brennion personally by
> ONLY Jerry Irvine.
> Jerry<
>
> Oh yes, you did DELIVER it to me - but you didn't write it.

> It says (c) 1984 Chuck Rogers.

We already had this conversation in a previous thread where you conceded
this is derivitive work of previously copyrighted 1983 Jerry Irvine
material created on my account. You also conceeded that Chuck and I had a
50% split arrangement as regards alt.x cd.x cp.x and the other minor
programs we have at times included with orbit.x trajec.x rentry.x,
malwek.x etc.

Look Fred. It's no secret you have taken my 50% for the past several
years and did so without my consent. It is no secret that at no time have
I simply renounced my rights to income. The only thing I actually did do
is say I no longer want to personally associate with Chuck because of his
repeated cases of a complete lack of ethics and gross powerplays, many of
which at my expense.

You can play this petty game all you want. I can see you have no
intention of seeing that all the authors of that program are compensated.
I can see you are willing to disregard the facts of history which led to
the development of alt4. I can see you are interested primarilly in the
power and prestige, whatever that might be, of being in "control" of alt4
(by having the RAS phone go to you, by copy protecting the programs, by
refusing to deliver prepaid copies to me, etc.)

Whatever.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Would you apologize on this forum for for making an
> innuendo that turned out to be provably false

You're probably right, Fred. There is enough 'provably true' cases of
impropriety and indiscretion to completely negate the need for me to
listen to 'range talk', anyway.

It just kinda 'made sense', in that it would explain pretty clearly the
unyeilding efforts by Rogers at LDRS 11 to derail *any* attempts by the
membership to seek *any* alternative to simply GIVING AWAY their
magazine. I have a hard time, what with history being what it is,
convincing myself that Mr. Rogers had the best interests of the
*association* in mind throughout all that. I dunno, maybe it *was*
because of Kelly's threats to, "put the Tripolitan out of business" -
but, as 'president', one would *normally* think Chuck's response to such
low-life threats would be something along the lines of, "As President of
Tripoli, I'll be damned, Bruce, if I will sit by and let you do such to
this organization! You're fired - so take your marbles and go home!"

(I know, I know - I'm giving Chuck too much credit -- silly me)

> What difference would it make if I took the trouble to send you copies of
> cancelled checks?

Probably the best thing would be to scan a few (say July/August '92 and,
oh, maybe one every 6 months or so) and just upload the images out
here. Then no one could say that I wouldn't admit to being wrong about
this.

And, who knows, I might actually be moved to say, once again:

"Good for you, Fred."

:-)

-- john.

[F Brennion]

John Cato wrote:
>Probably the best thing would be to scan a few (say July/August '92 and,
oh, maybe one every 6 months or so) and just upload the images out
here. Then no one could say that I wouldn't admit to being wrong about
this.<

Very cute. Anyone could claim I faked the scans. In fact if you then
*failed* to imply that I could have faked them I'd wonder if you were
slipping out of character.
I'd rather take the original checks to a public notary and have notarized
copies made and send them to your house via registered mail.

>And, who knows, I might actually be moved to say, once again:<
>"Good for you, Fred."<

You see, there's the part that keeps bothering me, John. I offer to spend
my own time and money to the deliver physical evidence to you that YOU
suggested would prove my claim that RAS has been paying for these ads....
and then you counter by claiming you may simply declare it meaningless and
irrelevant once you see the proof.
One COULD get the idea you really don't CARE about evidence or proof ...
you are satisfied to have made an unprovable assertion for which no
evidence to the contrary is acceptable. This would be a pretty childish
mode to operate in if it were true.

Have I stated your position accurately? If not then please clarify it.

[Konrad Hambrick]

In article <320EC4...@almatel.net>,

John H. Cato, Jr. <jc...@almatel.net> wrote:

>F Brennion wrote:
>>
>> Wrong. We were lily white.
>
>RAS? Lily white? Oxymoron? Why not!
>
>
>> The certainty of that event made us careful not to step over
>> the line with respect to releasing TMT motor data to RAS customers
>> in a method or time frame that would call up ethical questions
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> regarding RAS and TRA.
>
>"TIME FRAME"??????????????????????????????????????
>
>Then why, pray tell, didn't you LISTEN to your own conclusions and
>advice and *hold back* until this information was disseminated to the
>TRA membership???? -- or --
>
>Why, pray tell, wouldn't you, as a *member* of TMT - and your 'buddy',
>as a *director* within TRA ring up 'mr. prez' and tell him to 'git
>cracking' to get that information out - in parallel with RAS releases -

I have been reading this with interest and apprehension.

If indeed RAS is profiting by data funded by Tripoli
membership, should not the ownership of the program
revert to the members of Tripoli ?

Of course, this argument could be settled once and for
all if someone was to post the unedited RAS data for
the H180, for example.

The shape of the curves published in the TMT manual and
that of the Aerotech marketing brochure are so different
that it should be easy to tell whether the RAS data is
indeed based on Aerotech Data and Averaged Total Impulse
data from TMT or if it is based on thrust data fro the
test stand. ( Note the spike in the TMT curve at 0.33
sec that I asked about in another post )

This is one of them binary issues ( Yes | No ;-)

-- kjh
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad J. Hambrick | email: kon...@netcom.com |
310 Third Ave - Suite C21 | work: (619) 585 8611 |
Chula Vista, CA 91910 | home: (619) 423-4451 |

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 39:

TMT back up and running.

-----------------------

Shortly after the beginning of the month of February '94, the test stand
*FINALLY* arrived in Florida. This was over 3 months after we were
'shut down' due to the stand not arriving at the 'appointed hour' by 1
November 1993. I wrote a letter to Chuck Rogers to advise him of our
new 'operational' status - and to cover a few other things:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

9 February 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

Mr. Charles E. Rogers, President
Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., Inc.
P.O. Box 10065
Lancaster, CA 93584

Re: The Tripoli test stand

Dear Chuck,

I had a pretty lengthy telephone conversation with Will Meyerriecks last
night about the Tripoli test stand and thought I would pass along the
gist of that conversation.

First and foremost, the stand is now officially and physically in the
possession of the Committee (Dan Wilson) as of yesterday. The team
plans on getting together this coming weekend (2/12-13) to look the
stand over and do any refurbishment necessary to bring it up to an
'operational' status. Dan Wilson has taken a cursory look at it and
there appears to be some corrosion of various surfaces, but my
conversation with Will indicates that this is not a 'major concern'
item. I am confident, based on that conversation, that the team will be
able to 'bring the system up' to spec without any major rehabilitation.

Somewhat related to this was Will's disclosure of the need to modify the
stand to provide a 'frangible link' as a first line defense against load
cell damage due to anomalous motor behavior. Will advised me that the
expenses associated with this 'mod' to be minor (probably under $50.00
or so) and I felt it appropriate to tell him to go ahead with whatever
was needed. (He said that they already have some of the parts necessary
for this and the expenses may only involve a pack of welding rods, etc -
so my $50.00 estimate looks to be more than generous). I am under the
assumption that TMT's 'operating expenses' account is where this would
come from. If that is in error, please advise. Also, on this subject,
I would appreciate clarification as to exactly what I, as Chairman,
would be allowed to authorize for these types of 'incidental expenses' -
without the necessity of a Board vote to release funds.

On another subject, Will and I discussed this recent Board approval of
$500.00 for the Small Motor Test Stand. It appears that the present
Tripoli test stand *would* allow the testing of these smaller motors -
contingent on the acquisition and use of a smaller range load cell (50 -
100 lbs rating). Will and I are both of the opinion that the proper
first step in gaining small motor testing ability would be to go ahead
and get one of these lower range cells and analyze its validity, in the
present stand, at getting good data on these smaller motors. The need
for a low range load cell is a given in any approach at testing these
smaller motors, so this expenditure would not be wasted, in *any* case.
If the current Tripoli stand can give us good data, it would seem
unnecessary to put forth the funds to build another stand. I advised
Will to go ahead and research what he (and the rest of the team) would
feel appropriate (including exact brand and cost). The next time we get
together, we will discuss it and reach a final decision and then act on
it.

As far as our next test session, it was my hope that we could get
together this coming weekend (2/12-13) to begin 'clearing the backlog'
in time for an AML update prior to the NSL launch in Dallas the
following weekend (2/19-20). Inasmuch as this 'refurbishment' period is
necessary, it seems highly unlikely that hope will be realized. The
present plan is to 're-start' our testing program with the Tripoli stand
on 2/19 and, subsequently, get back on our '30 day' testing rotation.

I will keep you advised of our progress on this conversion of the
existing Tripoli stand over to the small motor capability as it
progresses.

Sincerely,

John H. Cato, Jr., Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This letter covers several things - but, also, illustrates that,
regardless of whatever 'doubts' were beginning to form in my mind
relative to the 'bylaw issue', I am still trying to not let that
interfere with my administration of the committee. The reader will note
that I did 'assume' some things as to authorization of minor funds (for
the test stand refurbishment) - but *am* asking for clarification as to
that continuing without Board approval. The reader should further note
that I never got any response - positive or negative - to this request
for clarification.

---------------

Since we're in a 'lull' here (more or less), I feel it appropriate to
pause again for reflection and clarification of one issue that I have
mentioned several times up to this point - and that is these little
'quirks' in the minutes - and, more broadly, on *how* the published
minutes are used to 'lead' the membership along certain paths of
thought. Some are small and benign, but others are not.

First and foremost, we should address the issue of *accuracy* of the
minutes. There are *numerous* incidences I can cite (and will) of where
things are 'not quite right' - but are close. There is a reason for
that - Alaska Statutes *require* ACCURATE records, so if things got TOO
far off base, the Board could find themselves in some trouble. But that
does not mean they won't vary on the *degree* of DETAIL covered in the
minutes - which, upon review and reflection, indicate some manipulation
of the perceptions of the reader of those minutes - all, it seems,
calculated for effect.

Let's get a few examples out to illustrate this:

1) The reader will remember back before LDRS 12 (where I was
installed), I made mention that I knew NOTHING of my upcoming post until
merely TWO WEEKS prior to LDRS. Also that I was NOT advised of putting
together an action plan - nor was I given a 'head's up' that I would
only have seven weeks to get things together for NFPA in Long Island.

Now, look at the minutes for the Wichita meetings - 12 Aug. '93
(TR, v4n4, pg 19 col 2 - immediately prior to item 13):

"A number of board members were impressed by
John Cato who came to LDRS with a well thought out
plan to run motor testing committee. Everything
backlogged can be cleaned up by October 1993.
Efficient management of the committee's work after
that is expected."

EVERY LAST WORD OF THAT is a TOTAL *fantasy*.

Now... *WHY* would they write the minutes up this way? To be sure, this
is a very 'benign' thing - in the final analysis - I mean, all I would
have to do is just 'sit quiet' and let my 'reputation' with the
membership be enhanced by being led to believe the above words are true
(I suppose??!?) Damn convenient that the 'date' of 'clearing the
backlog' was RIGHT about the time I would HAVE to have a running program
for NFPA, right?

Since this really doesn't matter, WHY wouldn't they just SAY it THE WAY
IT WAS - that Lamothe had talked to me about taking the reigns of TMT
and I was willing to do it - motion taken and passed. Period.

Well, this fits into the 'glowing, positive image' that "All's right
with the world and the TRA leadership." For somebody to step up with a
'well thought out plan' sure reads a lot better for the 'propaganda
machine' - than, say, "We were desperate and needed to find SOMEBODY to
take it, and Cato was fool enough to do it - never mind if he didn't
'have a plan' - we've got a 'body', so let's not look a gift-horse in
the mouth, right?" <g>

2) Move on over to Saturday night at the banquet (TR, v4n4, pg 21,
item 24) Election of Officers 1993-4:

"Dennis Lamothe moved, Dennis Wacker
seconded: Chuck Rogers - President

Motion passed unanimously. C. Rogers abstaining."

The reader will remember my accounting of this 'banquet meeting' and
that I was watching *very* closely what Rogers' 'vote' was and that he
voted for himself... but that is NOT what the minutes (above) show, now
is it??

Again... *WHY* did they do this?? Image again.

Let's get to some more ominous things - and, here, we're talking about
the LEVEL OF DETAIL that shows up in the minutes - as this is 'played'
pretty well *when they NEED it to 'play well'*. Older TRA members will
remember the controversy that arose in 1992 between Ken Vosecek - TRA
Board member and Treasurer - and Bruce Kelly, Tripolitan Editor. This
started in the early months of '92 (See TR, v4n1, Jan '93, pg 13 -
minutes for week of 17 May '92). It continued for nearly a year -
reaching a 'head' at the Spring '93 Danville launch and Board meeting
(see TR, v4n4, pg 12-15 - minutes for Danville meeting 3 Apr '93).

In this case - the GOAL was Mr. Vosecek's removal from the Board. This
accounting here is not to debate the validity or lack thereof of Mr.
Vosecek's removal (it was defeated by the membership there at Danville,
BTW). It IS, however, an observation of the unbelievable level of
DETAIL that goes into this. There is nearly THREE full pages of text
for this ONE item - a true 'play by play':

etc.etc.etc.

"Question (to Bruce): Did you eventually provide receipts?

Bruce: Yes.

Ken: No he didn't.

Question: Concerned that all records are not in the
Treasurer's hands. The bylaws require the Treasurer
to be responsible for all records. Why doesn't he
have them?

Ken: I wrote some checks on faith that receipts
would follow. They didn't

Question: It's wrong to send out checks without receipts.

Ken: For my efforts to try to get receipts for all
expenditures I was removed as Treasurer.

Question: (Back and forth, submit records? Yes. No.)
You should both be removed.

etc.etc.etc."
(pg 14, col 1)

This in the middle of all this - and it goes on and on.

WHY such ungodly level of detail???? To give both sides some kind of
'fair shake'??? Not by putting this whole thing out before the
membership in the minutes. This kind of action should have been decided
in a special committee set up for this purpose - composed of folks
acceptable to BOTH sides - and their recommendations acted upon by the
membership.

4) In this SAME issue of the TR, this happens again at the General
Assembly meeting in Wichita - 14 August (where I was installed as the
new TMT chairman) - (see TR, v4n4, pp 22-25). In this case, we're
talking of the removal from the Board of Bill Wood (immediate past chair
of TMT) for non-performance. Again, this becomes another 'play by play'
accounting - spanning SEVERAL pages - with all members of the Board
pretty much taking their shots at Wood. And I even 'got into it' (pg
23, col 1) with one statement concerning Wood's letter of rebuttal to
the 'charges' before him - about the inability of the test stand to
function due to no load cell. The statement's I made concerning that
were true - but this was NOT the way to go about it - ESPECIALLY since
Mr. Wood was not there to defend himself in person (and Vosecek brings
this point up - right prior to my statements (pg 23, top of col 1)). I
owe the man an apology for this.

The point in this (and the fact I got 'caught up' in it) is, as folks
have seen me use the term before: "whipping the membership into a
froth". That is EXACTLY what it is - to generate a 'hanging mentality'
- get folks all worked up - and then 'jerk the rope' and hang whomever
is 'on the chopping block'. This time, it succeeded - Wood was removed
("By a show of hands, the motion passed overwhelminly - Bill Wood was
removed from the Tripoli Board of Directors." (pg 23, col 2).

So, to document this in the minutes only spreads the 'mentality' and
further discredits (to the membership at large) the individual that is
'targeted for liquidation'.

Would it not be wise to cover this in such detail - as, in both cases
above, we're talking about the removal of a director? Pretty serious
thing - maybe the membership DOES need to know about this, right? Read
Chapter 20 of Robert's Rules (Disciplinary Procedures) excerpts to wit:

"Confidential investigation by committee. A committee
whose members are selected for known integrity and good
judgment should conduct a confidential investigation
(usually including an interview with the accused) to
determine whether further action, including the prefer-
ing of charges if necessary, is warranted."
(9th ed., pg 646)

-- and --

"For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the
first resolution should avoid details as much as possible."
(9th ed., pg 647)

There are many, many further points in this Chapter 20 that fit with
this view.

Further still, since TRAs bylaws say that 'meetings shall be conducted
under Robert's Rules of Order', are they not REQUIRED to do it this way?

-----

Now, consider if you will the COMPLETE CONTRAST exhibited by the minutes
from New Orleans:

a) Right after lunch on Saturday where I advised the Board of my
'serious moral and ethical problems' with the bylaws misrepresentation:

"Reconvened at 2:11

The board moved into executive session at 2:14.
The executive session ended at 2:48."
(TR, v5n2, pg 12)

Not even the *MENTION* that I even addressed the Board.

b) Over on Sunday afternoon (after the executive session to decide
whether to give TMT the increase in its phone bill) where I advised the
Board of a 'simple way' to operate until the bylaws issue could be
resolved adequately:

"John Cato addressed the board regarding Bylaws."

(TR, v5n2, pg 14)

And THAT WAS *IT*... period.

<what did John *say* when he 'addressed the board regarding Bylaws'??
When, in the very next TR (v5n3) my Open Letter appeared, would not MANY
members have wondered what I *DID* say to them there in New Orleans?>

Why wouldn't they have opened up with the same level of detail on THIS
issue as they did when they were 'hanging' someone??

Simple.

*This* issue is something that would have ended up 'hanging' *THEM* - if
it were told truthfully and to the level of detail the other things
were.

Can't afford to let that happen - so we'll just 'skim' over this -
reduce it down to the bare essentials - and, even, drop a few items from
the minutes - keep it under wraps. Only way to assure survival - as
*this* issue could get real hot (which it did, BTW).

With this *constantly* varying level of detail - EXTREMELY detailed when
they might get their wish of 'nailing' someone - and almost non-existent
detail when the 'gun' is pointed back at them, the reader should look at
the minutes with a healthy dose of suspicion.

It is *manipulation* of the minds of the membership - and nothing more
than 'party propaganda' - carefully selected and edited to achieve the
desired effect.

Be wary of it - for it is VERY real.
---------------

Next in Part 40: As if *this* wasn't enough?!?!

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> I'd rather take the original checks to a public notary and have notarized
> copies made and send them to your house via registered mail.

If you are so motivated, then do so - once they arrive and appear to
confirm your assertions, I will put out here a public retraction of the
'innuendo' made concerning this.

No need to bother with the excessive expense of Registered, again,
unless you are motivated. The planes fly pretty good Eastbound.

-- john.

[F Brennion]

John Cato writes:
>pretty much taking their shots at Wood. And I even 'got into it' (pg
23, col 1) with one statement concerning Wood's letter of rebuttal to
the 'charges' before him - about the inability of the test stand to
function due to no load cell. The statement's I made concerning that
were true - but this was NOT the way to go about it - ESPECIALLY since
Mr. Wood was not there to defend himself in person (and Vosecek brings
this point up - right prior to my statements (pg 23, top of col 1)). I
owe the man an apology for this.<

Sheesh..well, ok ... since you feel you *owe* the man an apology I'll help
facilitate it by emailing you Bill Wood's phone number. ( Not that I think
you simply meant 'owe an apology' in the *rhetorical* sense - with no
intention of ever actually *providing* one. )

Regarding the proof that Rogers Aeroscience has been paying Bruce Kelly
for ads you wrote (regarding tendering copies of payment checks):

>If you are so motivated, then do so - once they arrive and appear to
confirm your assertions, I will put out here a public retraction of the
'innuendo' made concerning this.<

That will be fine. We'll send you the *original* checks for your
inspection. It'll take a bit to dig them out of the archives in the garage
but you'll get them.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uos0o$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> suggested would prove my claim that RAS has been paying for these ads....

I personally do not claim you do not pay for the ads. I merely claim:

a. you get preferential treatment in placement and pricing and terms

b. you are using my portion of the proceeds to pay for them

Jerry

"And that's Mr.Pooftah to you...." - Ken Nagle

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <321017...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:

> In this case - the GOAL was Mr. Vosecek's removal from the Board. This

> Vosecek's removal (it was defeated by the membership there at Danville,

> "Question (to Bruce): Did you eventually provide receipts?

>
> Bruce: Yes.
>
> Ken: No he didn't.

> talking of the removal from the Board of Bill Wood (immediate past chair
> of TMT) for non-performance.

> - get folks all worked up - and then 'jerk the rope' and hang whomever

> is 'on the chopping block'. This time, it succeeded - Wood was removed
> ("By a show of hands, the motion passed overwhelminly - Bill Wood was
> removed from the Tripoli Board of Directors." (pg 23, col 2).

A couple of observations. If there is non-performance in a specific task
(treasurer-Vosecek) (tmt-Wood), then why do they not merely resort to mere
board member status with no special committee responsibility? Why throw
them out of an elected office. That seems not only excessive, but
illegal.

> above, we're talking about the removal of a director? Pretty serious
> thing - maybe the membership DOES need to know about this, right? Read
> Chapter 20 of Robert's Rules (Disciplinary Procedures) excerpts to wit:

And done in secret too. That IS ILLEGAL.

> With this *constantly* varying level of detail - EXTREMELY detailed when
> they might get their wish of 'nailing' someone - and almost non-existent
> detail when the 'gun' is pointed back at them, the reader should look at
> the minutes with a healthy dose of suspicion.

This practice was not limited to 1993 and 1994 it occured as far back as
1988 and forward especially 1990-91 when it was me, a vociferous member
involved in the hanging.

And look who stood up to make the allegations:

Frank Kosdon
Tim Collins

Look who was the voice of reason on the board:

Bill Wood.

Jerry

[Dangerous Dave]

fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote:

Go for it! Only 1,565 points still left to address. How about hitting
on one of the meaty issues, like the willing and premeditated fraud?

Dave

Web: http://www.ddave.com/
Ftp: ftp://ftp.ddave.com/pub/ddave/

[Dangerous Dave]

jjir...@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine) wrote:

>In article <4uos0o$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
>Brennion) wrote:

>> suggested would prove my claim that RAS has been paying for these ads....

>I personally do not claim you do not pay for the ads. I merely claim:

>a. you get preferential treatment in placement and pricing and terms

>b. you are using my portion of the proceeds to pay for them

>Jerry

You damn right there's preferential treatment! That is one of the
priveleges of being in the inner circle. It also gets used against you
when someone needs a little favor from you to help a "friend" out.

[Dangerous Dave]

fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote:

>John Cato wrote:
>>Probably the best thing would be to scan a few (say July/August '92 and,
>oh, maybe one every 6 months or so) and just upload the images out
>here. Then no one could say that I wouldn't admit to being wrong about
>this.<

>Very cute. Anyone could claim I faked the scans. In fact if you then
>*failed* to imply that I could have faked them I'd wonder if you were
>slipping out of character.

>I'd rather take the original checks to a public notary and have notarized
>copies made and send them to your house via registered mail.

Go ahead! Make the copies and send them registered mail. I'll scan
them and post the copies in my web site and to alt.binaries.pictures

All I see you doing is attacking one particular point and diverting
the rest of the issues. Why don't you address some of the other
15,000+ lines of text. If your server didn't pick them up, visit:

http://www.ddave.com/cato/

They're all there in beautiful html format.

>>And, who knows, I might actually be moved to say, once again:<
>>"Good for you, Fred."<

>You see, there's the part that keeps bothering me, John. I offer to spend
>my own time and money to the deliver physical evidence to you that YOU

>suggested would prove my claim that RAS has been paying for these ads....

>and then you counter by claiming you may simply declare it meaningless and
>irrelevant once you see the proof.

Fred, even if you can disprove one point, there are still 1,568 points
that I don't believe you will even attempt to disprove because that
would imply your complicity. Why don't you just have Kelly and Rogers
speak up?

>One COULD get the idea you really don't CARE about evidence or proof ...
>you are satisfied to have made an unprovable assertion for which no
>evidence to the contrary is acceptable. This would be a pretty childish
>mode to operate in if it were true.

Hey, proof is everything. Quit yapping and start posting something of
substance. I'll be glad to scan and post photos and anything else you
have to offer in the way of substantiation.

>Have I stated your position accurately? If not then please clarify it.

Sure! I believe I see a substantial amount of diversion and
sidestepping by focalizing on one somewhat irrelevant point that
really doesn't make a whole lot of impact on the substance of this
thread.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

F Brennion wrote:
>
> Sheesh..well, ok ... since you feel you *owe* the man an apology I'll help
> facilitate it by emailing you Bill Wood's phone number. ( Not that I think
> you simply meant 'owe an apology' in the *rhetorical* sense - with no
> intention of ever actually *providing* one. )

Got it, Fred. And, yes, it *was* sincere - as what all of us did
(remember, you were at (and part of) that 'hanging', too) there at '13'
was NOT right - regardless of how you (or any of your 'buddies') may
feel as to 'justification' on the issue. The question here has to be
asked as to WHY the TRA leadership let the TMT program get in such DIRE
straits before they FINALLY did something. Chuck knows the answer to
that (as do I).

I'm just curious of some of you folks can 'learn from the example' -
because some of your buddies have FAR more 'apologies' due and payable
than this indiscretion of mine.

.... nah. Too idealistic of me.

>
> Regarding the proof that Rogers Aeroscience has been paying Bruce Kelly
> for ads you wrote (regarding tendering copies of payment checks):
>
> >If you are so motivated, then do so - once they arrive and appear to
> confirm your assertions, I will put out here a public retraction of the
> 'innuendo' made concerning this.<
>
> That will be fine. We'll send you the *original* checks for your
> inspection. It'll take a bit to dig them out of the archives in the garage
> but you'll get them.

I meant this, too. Look at it this way - this *was* a story I heard -
from 'high up' - but there is also some 'range talk' concerning this
running around - and I simply must confess that I am *still* curious as
to Rogers' actions there at LDRS 11 - where this 'transfer' occurred.
He was just TOO 'single minded' in pushing this thing thru. It is
*natural* for one to get suspicious with such singleness of purpose. I
know, however, also that Mr. Kelly's actions are FAR from unimpeachable
surrounding this whole incident of the magazine (I just *loved* his
'rebuttal' to Kaplow back last fall about, "It was not even my idea."
Yeah, I *know* 'whose' idea it was - and I know *where* that 'idea' was
communicated - so his .001% 'truth' here far from tells the whole
story).

However, back to the subject at hand. As I see it, we ALL win - I can
lay to rest whatever suspicions I have as to any 'truth' to this story -
and, my gosh, WHO better to defend RAS's 'honor' than one who is NO fan
of Rogers. Would this not just 'blow folks out of the water' when you
get 'pounced' with such allegations in the future and you can answer,
"Well, just ask Cato - he has some of the actual cancelled checks."
Man, you guys will look 'lily white' (pardon the use of that term in
CORRECT context this time <g>). RAS wins here.

Further, I will now be able to reveal where the lies REALLY are - and
who it is that is trying to spread such dirt for a 'fine', 'upstanding'
organization such as RAS is. I win.

Sounds good to me - and a public retraction is a small price to pay for
such 'truth' to be told - and THAT is all that I am after.

Good for you, Fred.

(does it make more sense, now?)

-- john.

[WManess]

Interestingly enough, on this one point, I agree with Cato. The minutes
are uneven in detail. As I was the person taking some of the
aformentioned minutes, I can give a clear explanation that doesn't require
conspiracies, and these wonderful hidden agendas.

Meetings move at different speeds, and so do Secretaries.

Not that John will believe any of this, but for the unbiased readers, I
can catagorically state the following: In the two years I served as
Secretary, the published minutes are substantially the same as the ones I
took, with only spelling, puncuation and other gramatical nits edited.

Also, note that the minutes cited in the latest post have been taken by
several different secretaries, some long-hand (the older ones) and some by
typing into a lap-top. Does it require ulterior motives to explain why
they might contain different levels of detail? John, there's no
carefully coordinated plan to set up some wonderful image. Minute taking
is uneven, and sometimes there omissions. Human secretaries, taking
minutes on-the-fly sometimes miss things. Worse still when said secretary
is trying to participate as an active board member.

It has been suggested that we tape-record each meeting and then produce a
transcript. This approach has been rejected for three reasons. 1) If a
literal transcript is produced, it will be 50 or more pages per day of
meeting. 2) If the transcript is edited, the same issues arise regarding
record integrety, thereby solving nothing. 3) Who in hell's gonna go
through it and type it all? (As the guy doing the typing, I bought into 3
pretty heavily)

The approach I took to the minutes was essentially as follows, "If the
board takes any action RECORD it." Everything else was secondary to that
function. Now, I'm quite certain, that if John Cato had been taking
minutes at the first TRA meeting, we'd still be trying to form the
organization. John is an ideagogue, a perfectionist to the point of
dysfunction. Everything must be done perfectly, therefore, nothing would
get done.

Bill Maness
(wma...@impulseaero.com)

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4urt5p$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wma...@aol.com (WManess) wrote:

> Interestingly enough, on this one point, I agree with Cato. The minutes
> are uneven in detail. As I was the person taking some of the
> aformentioned minutes, I can give a clear explanation that doesn't require
> conspiracies, and these wonderful hidden agendas.
>
> Meetings move at different speeds, and so do Secretaries.
>
> Not that John will believe any of this, but for the unbiased readers, I
> can catagorically state the following: In the two years I served as
> Secretary, the published minutes are substantially the same as the ones I
> took, with only spelling, puncuation and other gramatical nits edited.

I can catagorically state the opposite. I have had minutes substantially
altered for publication to the point they said the opposite of what I
wrote. In each instance i requested a copy of the original notes to
compare with the printed version, and in each instance there was permanant
silence. Of course an interesting tactic Chuck and Bruce use is "we need
the original handwritten version right now before you type or duplicate it
in order to get it to press faster." By the time I learned how to bypass
this trick I was booted.

> Minute taking
> is uneven, and sometimes there omissions. Human secretaries, taking
> minutes on-the-fly sometimes miss things. Worse still when said secretary
> is trying to participate as an active board member.

Okay. But how do you explain entire sections of meetings missing that
HAPPEN TO BE REGARDING A CONTROVERCY ABOUT PRACTICES OF CHUCK OR BRUCE,
but controvercies about anyone else is reported in minute detail by the
same secretary?

Being there first hand for the Tindell kickout scam as a secretary at
meetings I can certify the following:

1. Chuck, Gary and others were actively trying to oust Tindell for what
appeared to me to be a minimal reason.

2. They were unwilling to even try to contact him directly and ask about
the issue, they wanted to employ surprise and involuntary expulsion as the
first and only method.

3. Minutes I took to document this fact disappeared in the posession of
Bill Wood.

4. Published versions were different to the point of being undiscernable
from the actual events or opposite of same.

Now this was 1989-90 or so and these recent events relate to 1992-94 but
except for the fact that we now add bruce kelly to the crazy-chuck rogers
mix, the process is the same.

>
> It has been suggested that we tape-record each meeting and then produce a
> transcript. This approach has been rejected for three reasons. 1) If a

How about keep the recorded version filed for future reference and
transcribing only to settle disputes of this nature? I would go along
with that.

It is appropriate for the minutes to include only key points and NOT a
true blow by blow.

> literal transcript is produced, it will be 50 or more pages per day of
> meeting. 2) If the transcript is edited, the same issues arise regarding
> record integrety, thereby solving nothing. 3) Who in hell's gonna go
> through it and type it all? (As the guy doing the typing, I bought into 3
> pretty heavily)
>
> The approach I took to the minutes was essentially as follows, "If the
> board takes any action RECORD it." Everything else was secondary to that
> function. Now, I'm quite certain, that if John Cato had been taking
> minutes at the first TRA meeting, we'd still be trying to form the
> organization. John is an ideagogue, a perfectionist to the point of
> dysfunction. Everything must be done perfectly, therefore, nothing would
> get done.

I think you overstate John's position. By shining light onto the
disfunctional TRA one finds so many blatant errors it may seem the
observer is an idealogue by comparison. In fact John himself has stated
on numerous occasions both in his commentary and in the letters to the
principals in this debacle he was seeking a minimal standard of ethics and
procedure be followed. Like for example a bylaws which is actually
legally valid for one MINOR example. He has a higher standard he would
like to see but he is also quick to note that an initial much less
agressive minimal standard should be a first step.

The very notable thing is that TRA leadership is even unwilling to do the
very minimal administrative things needed to have a valid bylaws, valid
disciplinary actions, and valid votes. How can we even begin to discuss
perfection under these circumstances.

You are trying to divert the attention of the issue, sir.

>
>
> Bill Maness
> (wma...@impulseaero.com)

Jerry

"I wanted a successful TRA. After all, I proposed it in the October 1983
California Rocketry magazine!"

I hereby give permission for someone (yes, even Fred) to scan and post the
April 1981 and October 1983 California Rocketry magazines (only) in full
to Sunsite.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

WManess wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, on this one point, I agree with Cato. The minutes
> are uneven in detail.

Interestingly enough, on Manness' point, I can agree with Bill. I
*understand* that different people were involved in the Permanent Record
over the years.... BUT....

> As I was the person taking some of the
> aformentioned minutes, I can give a clear explanation that doesn't require
> conspiracies, and these wonderful hidden agendas.
>
> Meetings move at different speeds, and so do Secretaries.

(from Part 39)...

the Wichita meetings - 12 Aug. '93 (TR, v4n4, pg 19 col 2 - immediately
prior to item 13):

"A number of board members were impressed by
John Cato who came to LDRS with a well thought out
plan to run motor testing committee. Everything
backlogged can be cleaned up by October 1993.
Efficient management of the committee's work after
that is expected."

----------

This didn't *happen*, Bill.

What 'level of detail' are we talking about here? What 'speed' was the
meeting moving at to cause such 'interesting fantasies'?

----------

(TR, v4n4, pg 21, item 24) Election of Officers 1993-4:

"Dennis Lamothe moved, Dennis Wacker
seconded: Chuck Rogers - President

Motion passed unanimously. C. Rogers abstaining."

----------

This didn't *happen*, either.

Speed? 'Differing levels of detail'?

In BOTH of those cases, it really didn't matter as to this 'difference'
- as the end result was, fundamentally, benign.

And, SINCE THAT IS THE CASE, *WHY* did *this* 'level of detail' even
find it's way into the minutes??? We are talking about something that
did NOT happen. A *fantasy*! ... *and* a falsification of the
Permanent Record.

That IS a violation of law, Bill.

If a secretary (with his (acceptable to me if the guy is honest)
personal viewpoints as to what is an appropriate 'level of detail')
canNOT even discern things that *happened* from things that did NOT
'happen' - then he, most certainly, should NOT have the job of
'recording the facts'.

> Also, note that the minutes cited in the latest post have been taken by
> several different secretaries, some long-hand (the older ones) and some by
> typing into a lap-top.

I find it interesting that some of this *greatest* 'level of detail' was
done so by 'long hand'

> Minute taking
> is uneven, and sometimes there omissions. Human secretaries, taking
> minutes on-the-fly sometimes miss things.

Bill, you knew DAMN well why you and the rest of the Board went into
that Excutive Session Saturday afternoon in New Orleans. Considering
the red faces and concerned look on everybody's face - I *know* even
*you* were not 'asleep' and, therefore, apparently 'missed' recording
the reasons for this 'session'.

> Does it require ulterior motives to explain why
> they might contain different levels of detail? John, there's no
> carefully coordinated plan to set up some wonderful image.

Well, we can re-visit this 'image thing' after you read the intro to
Part 40. (I kinda 'figured' you, or someone else, would 'take
exception' to my 'level of detail' difference re: me and New Orleans.
Don't think I will live by one example).

How 'ulterior' is it to you when things are recorded that didn't
happen? How 'ulterior' is it to you when things are omitted that are
KEY to understanding the truth of what actually happened?

I call that *DAMN* ulterior!!

> It has been suggested that we tape-record each meeting and then produce a
> transcript. This approach has been rejected for three reasons. 1) If a

> literal transcript is produced, it will be 50 or more pages per day of
> meeting. 2) If the transcript is edited, the same issues arise regarding
> record integrety, thereby solving nothing. 3) Who in hell's gonna go
> through it and type it all? (As the guy doing the typing, I bought into 3
> pretty heavily)

Why in the hell does *anybody* have to 'go through it and type it'?

With a tape transcript - and your (as secretary) appropriate
distillation of what gets published in the minutes - you would (seem to)
have enough. If questions came up in the future - then the audio
transcript could be referred to to verify in greater detail what the
'summary' in the minutes recorded. Sometimes (especially with a
trustworthy secretary) this 'audio transcripts' only purpose is for the
*secretary* and nobody else.

The only real 'problem' with AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS is that you now have NO
REASON for inaccuracies in the minutes and would have to MAKE SURE they
'matched' with reality. Tough job - especially in light of the current
makeup of the TRA Board.

> The approach I took to the minutes was essentially as follows, "If the
> board takes any action RECORD it." Everything else was secondary to that
> function.

Inasmuch as 99.9% (or, maybe, higher) of the membership was not at the
meetings summarized by these minutes - it would seem particularly
*germane* that the *REASONS* for these 'actions' be recorded. The
'actions' themselves MUST be recorded - because if the Permanent Record
doesn't *show* those 'actions', they never happened. With very limited
exceptions, the ONLY thing the membership has to go on as to who they
should support (since these 'directors' DO represent them) are these
minutes - showing who supported a particular view, why he supported it,
how he voted on it. Without *SOME* level of 'why', the membership is
pretty near in the dark on many things. Why wouldn't your 'sense of
reponsibility' to those who elected you not cause you to see that?

This (need for the reason 'why') is *especially* so, since there are
VERY FEW instances that can be cited where a 'director' wrote an open
letter to the membership - giving his 'read' of the current issues
before the organization - and how and what he is planning to do about
those issues in the coming months. About the only times I ever saw an
'open letter' from a director was AFTER he left office (not just you).
Lot of good it does the members then. Personally, I think the bylaws
should read to REQUIRE a MINIMUM of one 'letter to the membership' per
year from EACH director for him to keep his seat. Forget this '2 J
motor garbage' of Thompson.

This (need for the reason 'why') is *especially* so, in that I have
NEVER seen an 'Annual Report of the Board of Directors' published in the
TR. The bylaws state that ALL committees shall file an 'annual
report'. The Board IS a committee by definition (check out RRoO if you
doubt my viewpoint) - and, thereby, *should* be filing that report.

Nor have I EVER seen an 'Annual Report' by *ANY* committee printed -
INCLUDING THE ONE I FILED at LDRS 13.

Committees are where ALL the 'work' of the Association is done. Doesn't
it seem *appropriate* to let the members KNOW what was 'done' the
previous year? Does the membership need to write a *MANUAL* explaining
this to the Board? (If so, then I submit the Board needs to be fired and
get some folks in there that will ACT without being told to or
threatened).

However, if the minutes had a sufficient 'level of detail', these
reports would be OLD NEWS.

> Now, I'm quite certain, that if John Cato had been taking
> minutes at the first TRA meeting, we'd still be trying to form the
> organization.

Well, I'm 'quite certain' you are speculating here.

> John is an ideagogue, a perfectionist to the point of
> dysfunction. Everything must be done perfectly, therefore, nothing would
> get done.

(Binary thinking.... A G A I N !!)

Gee, Bill, I guess you were ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL during those first seven
weeks of my administration of TMT.

Must have been asleep when folks posted public on CIS that we had got
more done in 3 months than the previous committee did in 3 YEARS.

After getting tested over 140 motors that year and adding more than
SIXTY, UNIQUE items to the AML - and THIS on top of a major *firestorm*
of dirty politics, that sure was a damn 'dysfunctional' motor testing
committee that year, wasn't it? (Remember, of those 12 months of my
administration, we were DOWN for FULLY 25% of those 12 months because we
didn't have a test stand - due to a 'dysfunctional' West Coast
'leadership' that couldn't seem to "muster up the strength to ship 2
containers to Florida").

What 'level of detail' do you ascribe to the 'dysfunctionality' of the
motor testing program in the two years since I departed?

What 'level of detail' do you ascribe to the 'dysfunctionality' of the
'leadership' that, fundamentally, was the *cause* of TMT's
'dysfunctionality' since '94?

Or, will that just be 'edited' and/or 'missed'?

Your 'concept' of GETTING THINGS DONE is pitiful.

The current TRA 'leadership' survives ONLY due to the 'dysfunctionality'
of its membership - which is CAUSED by this 'leadership's' viewpoints as
to appropriate 'level of detail'.

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uuau6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, han...@aol.com (Hans744) wrote:

> Whoa. this is fbrennion (Fred Brennion).
>
> I just realized the post I made about TMT and the magazine and all to John
> I am using my buddy Hans' account since I couldn't get through on mine.
> Like you couldn't tell from the context, eh?

What an AOL retard. If you cannot log on use a different dialup number.
There about 10 accessable from 818 area code as a local call. Can you
EVEN explain how someone elses account could somehow be more accessable?

I have used AOL alot and this is completely beyond belief.

Not that it matters a hill of beans.

Jerry

[Hans744]

[Hans744]

John Cato wrote:

>Got it, Fred. And, yes, it *was* sincere - as what all of us did
(remember, you were at (and part of) that 'hanging', too) there at '13'
was NOT right - regardless of how you (or any of your 'buddies') may
feel as to 'justification' on the issue. The question here has to be
asked as to WHY the TRA leadership let the TMT program get in such DIRE
straits before they FINALLY did something. Chuck knows the answer to
that (as do I).<

I recall being rather flabbergasted myself the way things drifted with TMT
at the time and wondered why it was tolerated for so long. Bill Wood and I
had major disagreements over how important it was to weigh the empty
motors in order to come up with accurate propellant weights. I simply
REFUSED to do any data reduction until I got the weights. I felt I needed
this as leverage to get him to get those weights. ( It was a rather
unsuccessful ploy, in retrospect.)
Bill said it wasn't all that important and that he'd get the weighing done
after we got the curves published. I refused to do this. Bill had the
fired motors in several gunny sacks and for a godawful long time didn't
weigh them. Bill had the test data on floppies as well as I did - after
all, he was the chairman.

The other thing was getting the load cell ordered for the Florida stand. I
finally got so f-----g sick of listening to the crap about who was going
to send who a check for postage to mail the check for the load cell and
crap like that that I just insisted that Bill give me the supplier's name
and phone number and the model number and I just up and ordered the
frigging thing on my credit card, trusting Tripoli to reimburse me, which
they did. I just got crazy with frustration over Bill's attitude. He
wouldn't return a phone call to anyone ever, for anything, unless he had
the money in his hand to pay for it in advance. I am literally not
kidding. The guy makes Dickens' Scrooge look like a looney =spendthrift=!
I enjoy Bill's company and he's a fun guy to talk to but some of his
attitudes really stagger me. I testified at LDRS that his attitude was
obstructionist in *effect* -- because of his unreasonable demands that
things be done in a certain sequence and in a certain way. I felt that
this worked out to the detriment of TMT progresst. And I told him so. But
Bill was very convinced of the rightness of his ways. The mere possibility
that he might not get reimbursed $2.54 for a phone call would paralyze
him into inaction it seemed. ("Well, when they cut me a check then I'll
make the call, but until then, if they want to play games, hey - I
couldn't care less", or some such.) Whatever. Diff'rent strokes I guess
...

> Regarding the proof that Rogers Aeroscience has been paying Bruce Kelly
> for ads you wrote (regarding tendering copies of payment checks):
> >If you are so motivated, then do so - once they arrive and appear to
> confirm your assertions, I will put out here a public retraction of the
> 'innuendo' made concerning this.<

>I meant this, too. Look at it this way - this *was* a story I heard -
from 'high up' - but there is also some 'range talk' concerning this
running around - and I simply must confess that I am *still* curious as
to Rogers' actions there at LDRS 11 - where this 'transfer' occurred. <

We'll start digging them out when we get back from Black Rock next week.

>He was just TOO 'single minded' in pushing this thing thru. It is
*natural* for one to get suspicious with such singleness of purpose.<

Yeah, well, people GET single minded when they actually SEE a clear choice
between two alternatives and are convinced that one is A MUCH MUCH better
choice than the other. Going private sure was a slam dunk with ME, I'll
say. Call ME single minded too.

>I know, however, also that Mr. Kelly's actions are FAR from unimpeachable
surrounding this whole incident of the magazine (I just *loved* his
'rebuttal' to Kaplow back last fall about, "It was not even my idea." <

Well *I* believe it was not his idea because I was there. I recall seeing
him very gradually and tentatively turning the idea over in his head.
After the idea was kicked around a while he wanted to =see= it happen just
like I did but he certainly did =not= initally himself in the role. I
recall seeing other people suggest to him that he consider doing and and
seeing those people get enthusiastic at the mere =possibility= that
=someone= WOULD be willing to take it on! Sort of like...." we thought it
was hoping for too much that we could actually FIND somebody who would
take this on.... but when we suggested it to Bruce he looked like he was
at least willing to =entertain the IDEA=! Hot damn! Maybe this thing CAN
go private after all and we can have a shot at having a GREAT magazine
instead of just a limp rag than lurches out whenever people can spare the
time and effort to do it..
This is VERY MUCH the atmosphere that I recall. Bruce in no way appeared
to be 'enthusiastic' or 'pursuing it'. I specifically remember thinking he
was, if anything, a little tentative and lacking in conviction that he
should undertake it at all....but I sure =hoped= he would give it a go
... because I saw the alternative holding out only a totally lackluster
future.
This was all not an 'act' on Bruce's part, either. Hell, *I* can act ...
and I can spot an act too. I'm telling you straight the way it happened
and I'd repeat every word of it in front of a lie detector examiner with
$1000 of my own money on line if it ever came to that.

I suppose your suspicions are reasonable in the sense that -- well, it
makes *sense* that this -could- have happened..... yet it DIDN'T happen. I
don't remember whose idea it was that the mag go private but as soon as I
heard it I felt "DAMN...what a great idea! Now I just hope we can find
someone who's got the guts to take it on!

Once the discussions started I myself was adamantly apposed to ANYTHING
except the magazine going private because I felt we were looking at YEARS
of lackadaisical effort by well-meaning volunteers with busy lives. The
big rub with volunteers is that you can never pressure volunteers -- they
take offense and say "screw you pal, I have a life to live and if you
can't live with the time I =can= donate on the schedule I can =donate=
it....well,then maybe I'll just bail and you can get somebody else." So
you have to keep pleading with them not to quit and cut them more and more
slack and pretty soon you realize thing are getting pathetic...but you
have no choice...because what the hell, they're volunteers!
Bill Wood was vehemently opposed to anything except a volunteer magazine.
He didn't CARE if only 2 or 3 issues a year came out...he seemed ( and he
wasn't alone in this) completely enthralled with the ideological purity
and nobility of the idea of volunteerism. ( I kept flashing on images
communist ideology ... like ..."hey, pal, it doesn't =matter= that it is
virtually =certain= to fail as a volunteer effort .... because that is
=far= outweighed by the prospect of warm fuzzies we could reap if it
actually =worked= as a volunteer effort ....so what the hell, let's go
ahead and invest a couple of years and roll the dice.")

Hey, call me a free-market capitalist pig, but I felt with an incentive
for action and excellence based on private enterprise that high power
rocketry could make major advances and gain legitimacy and nationwide
acceptance. I think events have proven this to be true. You have ONE guy
in charge of getting this magazine out. No committee meetings, no
factional fighting, no six-way teleconferences, no blame-fixing and
expense account fudging and personal grudges to sort out. All this crap -
that always seems to happen in volunteer efforts eventually - just saps
energy from the objective: giving the member what they really
wanted...which was a kick-ass good looking magazine with great photos,
good technical reporting, and something TRA members could point to with
pride and say "this is my hobby and here's the write up on the stuff we
do".
Bruce has busted his ass on this magazine and anyone who thinks a rotating
cadre of volunteers would have EVER stood a chance of putting out
something as classy and regular as HPR mag is just a utopian socialist
dreamer. (check out Pablo Solari's (sp?) 'Arcosanti' project for a
world-class example of this kind of dream that went off the tracks. The
thing is only 1/3 finished after 25 years and now he's got people paying
him for the privilege of working like drones making wind chimes while they
bask in his aura of his philosophical ramblings)

My vision of what WOULD happen if it went private DID happen. And its
sharp appearance and good distribution have flushed out a couple of
THOUSAND born-again-rocketeers who probably would have never heard of high
power rocketry if we'd continued with some irregularly published, 2-color,
volunteer rag on pulp paper that no hobby shop would even wipe the
restroom floor with.
So what if Bruce made money doing it? (And it hasn't been -much- that's
for damn sure...or he wouldn't still be laying carpet.) He's busted his
keister. The guy is a real =doer=. He amazes me with his energy and drive.
He got the job done. George Patton was a guy who got the job done too.
Sure he was a little rough around the edges and he had his detractors, but
he was the right guy at the right time in the right job. History will say
that about Bruce's job with the magazine too.

>However, back to the subject at hand. As I see it, we ALL win - I can
lay to rest whatever suspicions I have as to any 'truth' to this story -
and, my gosh, WHO better to defend RAS's 'honor' than one who is NO fan
of Rogers. Would this not just 'blow folks out of the water' when you
get 'pounced' with such allegations in the future and you can answer,
"Well, just ask Cato - he has some of the actual cancelled checks."
Man, you guys will look 'lily white' (pardon the use of that term in
CORRECT context this time <g>). RAS wins here.<

Sounds good to me.

>Further, I will now be able to reveal where the lies REALLY are - and who
it is that is trying to spread such dirt for a 'fine', 'upstanding'
organization such as RAS is. I win.<
>Sounds good to me - and a public retraction is a small price to pay for
such 'truth' to be told - and THAT is all that I am after.<

Like I said, we can and =will= prove we've been on the up and up with
paying for advertising at HPR.

\

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 40:

Be wary of it - for it is VERY real:
-----------------------------------

There are a few 'addendums' that should be noted in reference to the
latter issues raised in Part 39 - as it concerns the 'level of detail'
in the minutes varying - depending on who would be most 'affected' by
that detail. As most would guess, I will not come to a conclusion on
only a single piece of data - as (it would appear) was the case with my
example of the 'skimming' of the facts from New Orleans. There are
other examples and we will visit them here...

'Lacking in detail - CASE 2':

Tripoli Report - v2n5 - October 1991 - page 2 - minutes of Board meeting
15 August 1991 - Gerlach Community Center - Item H:

"H. Open meeting to discuss G. Price Letter.

Chuck Rogers motioned to have an open rather than closed
board meeting to discuss Gary Price's controversial letter.
Dennis Lamothe seconded.

Motion passed 8-1

Voted FOR: All except K. Vosecek

AGAINST: K. Vosecek

The subject material of Mr. Price's letter were sensitive
and accusatory. The minutes shall not go into any detail
of its context in respect for Mr. Price."

-----

same issue - page 3; minutes of Board meeting 16 August 1991; Item A:

"A. The Gary Price Letter:

The first item on tonight's agenda was the subject material
of Mr. Price's controversial letter addressed to Gary Rosen-
field - dated 6 July 1991. Copies were distributed to the
Board. The initial subject of Mr. Price's letter was his
reason for Board resignation but then went on to disclose
many personal opinions and accusations toward a current
Board member. No further details of Mr. Price's letter
nor the rebuttal letter of the recipient Board member shall
be mentioned in these minutes in respect to the persons
involved. The Board made no motions to discuss the letter
further because Mr. Price declined to personally present
his case to the Board. The matter was then tabled."

-----

The reader should understand that these Board meetings were not before
the membership - rather this was (fundamentally) just the Board
themselves. I was at these meetings and didn't (at that time) know very
much about what this 'issue' was (this was the FIRST LDRS (i.e. 10))
that I started to attend the Board meetings - so I didn't 'raise my
antenna' about this. The handing out of this letter did NOT include the
one or two members that were sitting in on these meetings and the
discussion was pretty vague (so vague, in fact, I remember nothing about
what was said - but, as stated, my 'antenna' was not raised - I was a
'new' member back then and hardly knew the 'personalities' of anyone).

I now know about this 'issue' and can *assure* the reader there is a
*REASON* the contents of that letter wasn't "mentioned in these
minutes." It is NOT because (for once) the TRA Board wanted to comply
with the advice of RRoO - Chapter 20 (of course, we're not talking
'Disciplinary Action' here, anyway - however, it could have turned
*into* that). And it is NOT "out of respect for Mr. Price." There is a
*REASON* that every party (somewhat) involved in this 'issue' is
identified EXCEPT this one, mysterious "current Board member." (It
shouldn't take too much by folks to figure out *who* that 'mystery
person' is). There is a *REASON* why this "matter was then tabled." -
INSTEAD of some investigation undertaken into the points and facts
enumerated within Mr. Price's letter. There is a *REASON* why Mr. Price
resigned from the Board barely six months after being elected to it -
and it wasn't completely 'voluntary', either (as was my feelings for
years afterwards) (actually, it wasn't 'voluntary' AT ALL). There is a
*REASON* why, when I (properly and legally) requested copies (as a
member of TRA) of all the communications surrounding this 'event' back
in July '95 - I received a letter from Maness saying, "I don't have
that." Those 'reasons' are credibility and survival within the TRA
'leadership' - and not of Mr. Price's 'survivability' in *any* manner of
speaking.

Nor will I get into the issues surrounding this 'abberration' in TRA's
history here in my chronology - as I am trying to tell *my* story. In
my opinion, this issue is (far?) worse than my 'story' - and if many
folks within TRA knew of the details of this, you would be *MOST*
unhappy with some of your current 'leaders'. And, maybe you members out
there will have better success at 'probing' into this matter than I did
while I was a member (since, again by AS 10.20.131(b) - you can gain
access to this). The membership at large *should* know about this
'incident'. You really need to know, as it concerned a very
*fundamental* part of the Association... and you *really* will not like
what you find out - on that I am assured. The reason I introduce this
into my 'story' is that, indeed, it *does* enter into the story later
on.

---------------

'Lacking in detail - CASE 3':

Tripoli Report (the one after LDRS -13 - think it's v5n4 - don't have
mine here before me). Look for the minutes of LDRS-13's Thursday night
'meeting'. I prefer to refer to it as an 'inquisition' - which would be
more accurate. THIS was where the 'bylaws controversy' came to a head.

It was several months after LDRS 13 (actually, February 1995) when I was
over at the first waivered launch at Orangeburg (site of LDRS 15) when
the 'minutes' of this 'meeting' came up. The lot of us were up the road
at Columbia - eating at a Mexican restaurant for Saturday's supper when
I kind of asked the crowd, "Did any of you notice the minutes of
Thursday's 'meeting' in Wichita?" The (to be) Prefect of Tripoli
Atlanta (who was there) commented, "*WHAT* 'meeting'?" I kind of missed
his point initially <g>. But, indeed, he had a VERY valid point - that
the 'minutes' - and the *reality* of that Thursday 'meeting' MUST have
been some kind of 'parallel' reality in a different universe.

Since there were THREE video cameras running during this 'meeting', at
least we *do* have an *accurate* record of what transpired. One *sure*
can't count on the 'minutes' of this 'meeting' to give anything
*resembling* reality.

It, again, was due to the fact that the 'reality' of this 'meeting' is
something that the membership (at large) should know about. It does not
'paint' your 'leaders' in the best of light - nor does the fact that the
'record' they would prefer you see differs with that 'reality'. Since
the video still 'exists' (I have a copy from one camera) - and I imagine
there are (at least) some copies 'floating around' - might do a few
members good to see this for themselves.

(When we get to this point in our chronology, I will give a 'play by
play' of this. The 'theatre' here is quite interesting. The 'players'
are, too.)

---------------

As if *this* wasn't enough?!?!

------------------------------

We last left our story right after the first of February 1994 - with my
letter to Chuck Rogers on 9 February '94 - advising him that the test
stand was now (finally) in Florida - and that we were planning on
'gearing up' again with testing on 19 Feb. (my birthday, BTW). Well, I
was about to get a 'birthday present'.

The 9th of Feb. was on a Wednesday. On Friday (11 Feb), I received a
call from a potential architectural client. We had talked a few times
prior to that about some design work they were interested in me
performing for them. This work concerned rockets.... and rocket
motors. The Friday call was to confirm that, indeed, they were ready to
do something on this venture and did, definitely, want my services.
Part of why (maybe the majority of why) I was asked was due to my
involvment in the hobby (thereby giving me particular insight into the
issues germane to design of spaces for this kind of activity). I was
excited about the opportunity to put that knowledge to use in a real
design - there is not that many instances where *this* kind of design
crops up. I *had* been approached two times prior to do design work for
the *fireworks* industry - but this was the first for rocketry.

Almost simultaneous with these positive feelings came the feeling of,
"Oh, what wonderful timing!" This could be construed somewhat as a
conflict of interest (what with my chairmanship of TMT) and I would
*have* to notify the TRA Board about it. My client agreed with me.

Later that evening, I drafted out a letter to the Tripoli Board -
explaining what this commission was about - within the limits of normal
confidentiality - as this client wanted no public announcement about
their intentions until some more appropriate time in the future (as
their 'dreams' were closer to 'reality'). I am bound by their desire on
this - and, thus, did NOT identify either the client, not the time frame
of the planning of this endeavour.

As luck would have it, Lamothe called me on Saturday evening (12 Feb) to
discuss various motor testing issues (as I remember). Mine and Dennis'
ability to 'communicate' had been hampered somewhat due to the New
Orleans meeting and so there was some 'tension in the air' - but nothing
excessive.

Towards the end of the conversation, I told Dennis about this commission
and that a letter of advisement was going out on Monday morning to the
entire Board. Dennis then asked me, "Well, who is it?" I answered, "I
can't tell you that - as my client's desire is for this to remain
confidential at the present time." Dennis: "Well, HOW are we to
determine if there is a conflict of interest if we don't know who it
is?" John: "Dennis, *what* does the entity's identification have to do
with whether I can assume this work - it is the *scope* of my
responsibilities to this client that is the issue - which will be
spelled out clearly in my letter."

Dennis didn't think that would be the best and recommended that it only
go to him and Chuck (VP and P, respectively). I told Dennis I
understood where he was coming from (i.e. after New Orleans, this would
be like throwing gas on a fire - but that was not and *could not* be the
TOTAL factors entering into such a decision of disclosure.) Dennis
pretty much held to his viewpoint in this - but, like I said - there
were other issues here and Dennis simply was NOT looking at that.
'Politically'? Yeah, Dennis had a point. But that was only ONE point.
I had the responsibility of being straightforward to the TRA
leadership. What if, 6 months down the road, this 'got out'? If this
letter was throwning 'gas' at a fire, boy THAT would have been like
throwing plutonium at a nuclear power plant <g>. I told Dennis I would
keep his points and desires in mind but I would not make any promises -
and Dennis *was* clear on that - his disagreement notwithstanding.

On Sunday, 13 Feb, I was talking with my client again and told him about
this conversation with Dennis and his recommendations. I reiterated
that I was not in agreement with Dennis' viewpoint - and that it HAD to
go to the entire Board. My client responded, "You *HAVE* to tell them
about it, John." I understood - no need to 'sell me' on that. It was
simply the proper and ethical thing to do - politics notwithstanding.

Monday's mail carried 10 copies of this letter out - 9 to the Tripoli
Board of Directors and 1 to Scott Dixon at Vulcan. The reason for this
is that a motor manufacturer has the MOST to be concerned about with
this. Rosenfield was on the Board, so he would get his copy - but Dixon
needed to know about it, too:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

john h. cato, jr., r.a.
architect
o _____________________________________________________________ o
o
o

14 february 1994

Tripoli Board of Directors
(various locations)

re: Recent Architectural Commission

gentlemen,

This letter is to advise that, effective 11 February 1994, I was
approached by a 'rocketry related' concern to perform classic
architectural services for them. Inasmuch as my present Chairmanship of
the Tripoli Motor Testing Committee could present the image to the
outside world of a possible conflict of interest, I am writing you this
letter to advise of this recent commission and to elaborate as to my
responsibilities to and for this client.

I have advised my client as to what I could perform for them
(considering my TMT position) and that I should NOT be advised of any
'proprietary' information in my execution of services for them.
Accordingly, the following is what this commission will entail, as it
concerns services I will be performing:

1) Hazardous construction code research

2) Interior design and facilities layout

3) Structural, electrical, & mechanical design

4) Contract documents (plans & specifications)

5) Construction Contract Administration

Aside from the above disclosure of responsibility, I am not at liberty
to divulge any further information, as it places in conflict the normal
and proper confidentiality between architect and client, particularly
since this is, indeed, a commercial concern and it is strictly up to the
client to choose the proper time for any public announcement concerning
their activities.

It is my hope that the Tripoli Board will see that there is, indeed, no
real conflict of interest in this present activity I am undertaking. My
only involvement with this concern is strictly within the realm of
normal architectural services.

sincerely,

(signed)

john h. cato, jr., r.a.

_____________________________________________________________________
r.f.d. #2, box 58 nicholls, ga 31554-9618 912/345-2302

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------

Next in Part 41: How this all 'went down'

-- john.

[The Silent Observer]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <4uuau6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, han...@aol.com (Hans744) wrote:
>

> What an AOL retard. If you cannot log on use a different dialup number.
> There about 10 accessable from 818 area code as a local call. Can you
> EVEN explain how someone elses account could somehow be more accessable?
>

Someone else's account might be more accessible if one's own account were
out of service for some reason...

...though, in fairness, I should point out that my only personal
experience of that was when AOL lost the billing change notice to switch
my (then) fiance's account to payment from my credit card (instead of
from the checking account she was closing). One phone call, and she was
back online.

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uub5c$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Fred Brennion wrote from

another's account han...@aol.com (Hans744) wrote:

> I recall being rather flabbergasted myself the way things drifted with TMT
> at the time and wondered why it was tolerated for so long. Bill Wood and I
> had major disagreements over how important it was to weigh the empty
> motors in order to come up with accurate propellant weights. I simply

To the point nobody was willing to simply weigh them?

> REFUSED to do any data reduction until I got the weights. I felt I needed

Oh. That helped alot.

> this as leverage to get him to get those weights. ( It was a rather
> unsuccessful ploy, in retrospect.)

Try being helpful and supportive, not punative and agressive.

> Bill said it wasn't all that important and that he'd get the weighing done
> after we got the curves published. I refused to do this. Bill had the

So he did offer to weigh them at a different time. It was really an issue
of whether to go to press before or after they were weighed. Well, it
seems like if my motors can wait FIVE YEARS to have their data published
(and counting), then you can wait a month or so.

BTW are my motors certifications valid until three years AFTER the data is
published for the first time?

> fired motors in several gunny sacks and for a godawful long time didn't
> weigh them. Bill had the test data on floppies as well as I did - after
> all, he was the chairman.

I would like a copy of those data files for USR motors. This is an
official request to a committee member of a 501-c-3 association.

>
> The other thing was getting the load cell ordered for the Florida stand. I
> finally got so f-----g sick of listening to the crap about who was going
> to send who a check for postage to mail the check for the load cell and
> crap like that that I just insisted that Bill give me the supplier's name
> and phone number and the model number and I just up and ordered the
> frigging thing on my credit card, trusting Tripoli to reimburse me, which
> they did. I just got crazy with frustration over Bill's attitude. He

He had past experience with "the central committee" being reimbursed
immediately for every little thing while even assigned committee leaders
were often put off or never reimbursed at all. I know from first hand
experience. I had to bite a LOT of expenses on two Tripolitan mailings I
did as well as Tripoli Business Issue which was pre-pressed, but never
printed to be sure the lie of Jerry not completing the project could be
maintained to support the position that only Bruce was able to take over
Tripolitan. I offered to do it FOR THE ASSOCIATION for $500 per issue
stipend.

> wouldn't return a phone call to anyone ever, for anything, unless he had
> the money in his hand to pay for it in advance. I am literally not
> kidding. The guy makes Dickens' Scrooge look like a looney =spendthrift=!
> I enjoy Bill's company and he's a fun guy to talk to but some of his
> attitudes really stagger me. I testified at LDRS that his attitude was

> >I know, however, also that Mr. Kelly's actions are FAR from unimpeachable

> surrounding this whole incident of the magazine (I just *loved* his
> 'rebuttal' to Kaplow back last fall about, "It was not even my idea." <
>
> Well *I* believe it was not his idea because I was there. I recall seeing
> him very gradually and tentatively turning the idea over in his head.
> After the idea was kicked around a while he wanted to =see= it happen just
> like I did but he certainly did =not= initally himself in the role. I
> recall seeing other people suggest to him that he consider doing and and
> seeing those people get enthusiastic at the mere =possibility= that
> =someone= WOULD be willing to take it on! Sort of like...." we thought it
> was hoping for too much that we could actually FIND somebody who would

Get a life. This was a show. I had already stood up jumping up and down
to do it and taken on a TRA magazine project to prove my deadline skills
and publishing ability. Once I actually proved BOTH, the project was
tabled to assure the membership would not actually see a correct grammer,
typeset, nice photo, well laid out publication. That would have screwed
it for Bruce.

> take this on.... but when we suggested it to Bruce he looked like he was
> at least willing to =entertain the IDEA=! Hot damn! Maybe this thing CAN
> go private after all and we can have a shot at having a GREAT magazine
> instead of just a limp rag than lurches out whenever people can spare the
> time and effort to do it..

Explain to me how a private magazine has any better chance of success than
non-profit. Non-profit does not pay income taxes. It removes several cost
factors. It is not logical.

> This is VERY MUCH the atmosphere that I recall. Bruce in no way appeared
> to be 'enthusiastic' or 'pursuing it'. I specifically remember thinking he

It was a show, well orchestrated by Bruce, Tom and Chuck.

> was, if anything, a little tentative and lacking in conviction that he
> should undertake it at all....but I sure =hoped= he would give it a go
> ... because I saw the alternative holding out only a totally lackluster
> future.
> This was all not an 'act' on Bruce's part, either. Hell, *I* can act ...
> and I can spot an act too. I'm telling you straight the way it happened

Just like you can spot yourself telling a lie? Yea, right. Anyone simply
reading your posts here from the moment you arrived can see you have no
judgement whatsoever. You are superficial and reactionary.

> and I'd repeat every word of it in front of a lie detector examiner with
> $1000 of my own money on line if it ever came to that.
>
> I suppose your suspicions are reasonable in the sense that -- well, it
> makes *sense* that this -could- have happened..... yet it DIDN'T happen. I
> don't remember whose idea it was that the mag go private but as soon as I
> heard it I felt "DAMN...what a great idea! Now I just hope we can find
> someone who's got the guts to take it on!

Jerry Offered. Where does that appear in the minutes. Jerry offered about
20 times.

>
> Once the discussions started I myself was adamantly apposed to ANYTHING
> except the magazine going private because I felt we were looking at YEARS
> of lackadaisical effort by well-meaning volunteers with busy lives. The
> big rub with volunteers is that you can never pressure volunteers -- they
> take offense and say "screw you pal, I have a life to live and if you
> can't live with the time I =can= donate on the schedule I can =donate=
> it....well,then maybe I'll just bail and you can get somebody else." So
> you have to keep pleading with them not to quit and cut them more and more
> slack and pretty soon you realize thing are getting pathetic...but you
> have no choice...because what the hell, they're volunteers!
> Bill Wood was vehemently opposed to anything except a volunteer magazine.

Bill Wood was right. He usually is. You just can't handle his moral firmness.

> He didn't CARE if only 2 or 3 issues a year came out...he seemed ( and he
> wasn't alone in this) completely enthralled with the ideological purity
> and nobility of the idea of volunteerism. ( I kept flashing on images

There is that annoying little document called the bylaws to consider.

> communist ideology ... like ..."hey, pal, it doesn't =matter= that it is
> virtually =certain= to fail as a volunteer effort .

> So what if Bruce made money doing it? (And it hasn't been -much- that's

> for damn sure...or he wouldn't still be laying carpet.)

Jerry

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <3212BF...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:

> *REASON* that every party (somewhat) involved in this 'issue' is
> identified EXCEPT this one, mysterious "current Board member." (It
> shouldn't take too much by folks to figure out *who* that 'mystery
> person' is). There is a *REASON* why this "matter was then tabled." -
> INSTEAD of some investigation undertaken into the points and facts
> enumerated within Mr. Price's letter. There is a *REASON* why Mr. Price
> resigned from the Board barely six months after being elected to it -
> and it wasn't completely 'voluntary', either (as was my feelings for
> years afterwards) (actually, it wasn't 'voluntary' AT ALL). There is a
> *REASON* why, when I (properly and legally) requested copies (as a
> member of TRA) of all the communications surrounding this 'event' back
> in July '95 - I received a letter from Maness saying, "I don't have
> that." Those 'reasons' are credibility and survival within the TRA
> 'leadership' - and not of Mr. Price's 'survivability' in *any* manner of
> speaking.

I was still a member at the time. This is the issue of gary Price
learning about the skimming of association monies by presenting fraudulant
printing bills by Kelly to TRA. Price knew the printer Kelly was using.
I have posted in greater detail about this before. How Chuck and Gary and
the whole board knew this was happening and did NOTHING about it. I
demanded action and got none except expulsion for a trumped up charge in
March 1992. No meeting, no hearing, just a letter with a promise of an
attached refund check which was non-existent.

In 1990 I had already proven I was able to publish a magazine on time, on
budget, better than ever before (by simply using a Macintosh).

>
> Nor will I get into the issues surrounding this 'abberration' in TRA's
> history here in my chronology - as I am trying to tell *my* story. In

It would certainly justify TRA fraud cronicles parts 1-5.

> my opinion, this issue is (far?) worse than my 'story' - and if many
> folks within TRA knew of the details of this, you would be *MOST*
> unhappy with some of your current 'leaders'. And, maybe you members out
> there will have better success at 'probing' into this matter than I did
> while I was a member (since, again by AS 10.20.131(b) - you can gain
> access to this). The membership at large *should* know about this
> 'incident'. You really need to know, as it concerned a very
> *fundamental* part of the Association... and you *really* will not like
> what you find out - on that I am assured. The reason I introduce this
> into my 'story' is that, indeed, it *does* enter into the story later
> on.

On that basis they deserve to know.

> design - there is not that many instances where *this* kind of design
> crops up. I *had* been approached two times prior to do design work for
> the *fireworks* industry - but this was the first for rocketry.

So tell now.

> is?" John: "Dennis, *what* does the entity's identification have to do
> with whether I can assume this work - it is the *scope* of my
> responsibilities to this client that is the issue - which will be
> spelled out clearly in my letter."

See. He has idle curiosity, not a genuine desire to determine conflict of
interest. He wants to be in a news conduit. Confidential news.

> Monday's mail carried 10 copies of this letter out - 9 to the Tripoli
> Board of Directors and 1 to Scott Dixon at Vulcan. The reason for this
> is that a motor manufacturer has the MOST to be concerned about with
> this. Rosenfield was on the Board, so he would get his copy - but Dixon
> needed to know about it, too:

Had I been on that distribution list I would have considered disclosure as
sufficient relief of conflict of interest.

[F Brennion]

I wrote
>...t since I couldn't get through on mine.<

Jerry wrote:
> What an AOL retard. If you cannot log on use a different dialup number.
> There about 10 accessable from 818 area code as a local call. Can you
EVEN

>explain how someone elses account could somehow be more accessable? >have

used AOL alot and this is completely beyond belief.
>Not that it matters a hill of beans.<

This didn't have to do with phone circuits in the 818 area, rather with
stored passwords. When I'm home I have always used "stored passwords" so I
*never* have to enter my password and consequently have *long since*
forgotten it.
I was 30 miles away from home and wanted to use AOL and didn't want to
have to spend 20 minutes on line trying to get AOL to give me my pw.
So rather than not be able to get online - I made use of this other guy's
account to get on AOL but forgot I wasn't 'myself' when I decided to make
a
post. Sheesh.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uvsdj$8...@homer.alpha.net>, vvg...@mixcom.com (Mike Vande
Bunt) wrote:

> Actually, "couldn't get through" is what happens when one fails to pay one's
> AOL bill on time. This would make a friend's account more accessable,
> though I don't know that this is what happened in this case.

The reason I did not say this is that I know Fred and I do not think
failing to pay his bill is very likely. Hey, I'll give him credit where
it is due. I do think his thinking is a bit warped, so I thought it might
be for lack of knowing about alternative access numbers, but as it turns
out it is because he "forgot" his password. Again quite believeable. And
stupid. :)

One of the good things about AOL is nationwide local dial up access, so
one would think memorizing a password would be a good thing or using one
which is extremely easy to memorize. After all, the likelihood of someone
logging onto your aol screen name and guessing even an obvious password
(to you) is limp.

Just like Fred. :)

Jerry

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

[Mike Vande Bunt]

Jerry Irvine (jjir...@cyberg8t.com) wrote:
: In article <4uuau6$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, han...@aol.com (Hans744) wrote:

: > Whoa. this is fbrennion (Fred Brennion).
: >
: > I just realized the post I made about TMT and the magazine and all to John

: > I am using my buddy Hans' account since I couldn't get through on mine.
: > Like you couldn't tell from the context, eh?

: What an AOL retard. If you cannot log on use a different dialup number.
: There about 10 accessable from 818 area code as a local call. Can you
: EVEN explain how someone elses account could somehow be more accessable?

: I have used AOL alot and this is completely beyond belief.

: Not that it matters a hill of beans.

: Jerry

: --

: Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
: Opinion, the whole thing.

Actually, "couldn't get through" is what happens when one fails to pay one's

AOL bill on time. This would make a friend's account more accessable,
though I don't know that this is what happened in this case.

--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com <*> TRA:4537 NAR:65174

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4uvibc$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> I was 30 miles away from home and wanted to use AOL and didn't want to
> have to spend 20 minutes on line trying to get AOL to give me my pw.
> So rather than not be able to get online - I made use of this other guy's
> account to get on AOL but forgot I wasn't 'myself' when I decided to make
> a
> post.

Hey, that kina makes sense.

Jerry

:)

"Any nitwit can understand computers. Many do"

[Dangerous Dave]

On Tue, 13 Aug 1996 02:39:33 GMT, kon...@netcom.com (Konrad Hambrick)
wrote:

>In article <320EC4...@almatel.net>,
>John H. Cato, Jr. <jc...@almatel.net> wrote:
>>F Brennion wrote:
>>>
>>> Wrong. We were lily white.
>>
>>RAS? Lily white? Oxymoron? Why not!
>>
>>
>>> The certainty of that event made us careful not to step over
>>> the line with respect to releasing TMT motor data to RAS customers
>>> in a method or time frame that would call up ethical questions
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>> regarding RAS and TRA.
>>
>>"TIME FRAME"??????????????????????????????????????
>>
>>Then why, pray tell, didn't you LISTEN to your own conclusions and
>>advice and *hold back* until this information was disseminated to the
>>TRA membership???? -- or --
>>
>>Why, pray tell, wouldn't you, as a *member* of TMT - and your 'buddy',
>>as a *director* within TRA ring up 'mr. prez' and tell him to 'git
>>cracking' to get that information out - in parallel with RAS releases -
>
>I have been reading this with interest and apprehension.
>
>If indeed RAS is profiting by data funded by Tripoli

>membership, should not the ownership of the program
>revert to the members of Tripoli ?

You bet your bippy! Nothing a small class action suit and several
years in court wouldn't solve. :( It's going to take one major
upheaval and a whole new administration to effect any worthwhile
changes and have some of the proceeds of the membership's money return
to the membership.

>Of course, this argument could be settled once and for
>all if someone was to post the unedited RAS data for
>the H180, for example.
>
>The shape of the curves published in the TMT manual and
>that of the Aerotech marketing brochure are so different
>that it should be easy to tell whether the RAS data is
>indeed based on Aerotech Data and Averaged Total Impulse
>data from TMT or if it is based on thrust data fro the
>test stand. ( Note the spike in the TMT curve at 0.33
>sec that I asked about in another post )
>
>This is one of them binary issues ( Yes | No ;-)

Konrad, you have to remember that just about any thrust curve you find
published is subject to a bit of creative massaging when the graph is
drawn. There is no governing body that will insure the accuracy of
thrust curves. Kind of like going to the grocery store and reading
product labels. They are only going to put information required by law
on that label. Even that is subject to interpretation.

http://www.ddave.com/ ftp://ftp.ddave.com/pub/ddave/

[Dangerous Dave]

On 11 Aug 1996 22:14:15 -0400, fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote:

>
>John Cato, never one to let a resolved issue rest in peace, is trying to
>bore everyone to tears with something that was discussed on Modelnet (a
>now-defunct CompuServe newsgroup) in the fall of '94.
>
>Some interesting snippets:
>1. Tim Eiszner apologizes to Olivola, to me, to Chuck, to Rogers
>Aeroscience and the Modelnet group for this childish stunt.
>
>> To: Peter Olivola, 70363,1201 Wednesday, December 14, 1994
>9:48:03
>From: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037 #270038
>Peter, I've apologised to Fred, Chuck and RAS. I'll apologise to all here
>on CS. I will not however allow you to tell me to shut up! I shouldn't
>have and you shouldn't have.<

Well, since Tim Eiszner is my ex business partner, and I am now well
informed as to the depth of his deception towards me and other
investors, I don't find that little snippet plausible in the least. I
think it is more like CYA mode after short talk from Mr. Kelly.

>Wrong. We were lily white. We knew for sure that a disaffected crank with

Fred, you know for a fact that Tripoli has never and will never be
lily white with the present administration. There is just too much
financial interest involved; including your own and Rogers. Who are
you trying to fool?

--snip--

http://www.ddave.com/ ftp://ftp.ddave.com/pub/ddave/

[F Brennion]

DDave wrote:

>Fred, you know for a fact that Tripoli has never and will never be lily
white with the present administration.<

Daaaaaave! Pleeaaasee stop! I did not say that *Tripoli* was lily white
(whatever the heck THAT would mean.) I did not AVOID saying it either. It
simply isn't a subject I ever addressed nor would I care to...( and you
shouldn't read anything into THAT either) and would be an interminable
argument to get into. (Is that what you really want?)
Please, for the sake of all of us do not MAKE UP stuff and try to force
people to defend positions they never took. Please spend your time on your
cool website and not trying to create controversy on oddball angles here.
You will simply wind up with people on BOTH sides of the issues you jump
in on wringing their hands and begging you to please stop!
This has happened before as I recall. You flooded so many threads with
your verbal oatmeal and political spewing (which I can only *pray* is not
biding its time before spewing forth once again (like the chest-burster in
'Alien') ) on everything that entered your head that people ran screaming
for the exits and stayed away in droves.
We all have our particular areas of expertise. I would tactfully suggest
that verbal jousting and argumentation is not among your major
strengths.... just as building rockets is not among mine.

Errrr...where was I ? Oh yeah...you said

>There is just too much financial interest involved; including your own
and Rogers. <

Oh, please. RAS sells software and books. I makes no difference at all
whether I am even a TRA member or whether Chuck is on the board. We have
good products at fair prices that the marketplace seems to like. Other
folks jump into the market from time to time and pay their money for
advertising just like we do. If they have good products they stick around
... if their products are marginal or overpriced or presented ineptly they
disappear for a while. We don't need special treatment to sell our
products. Do you see us bragging in our ads that Chuck is on the board of
directors or that he was the president for a few years?
And as for the *amount* of money - cut it out. How many people are making
even a *poor* living in rocket-related businesses? Two or three?

You and Bill Wood and Ken Vosecek and Kaplow and McLaughlin and some other
like-minded disaffected ideologues should DEFINITELY start up a
socialist-modeled rocket group and show the free-market people how well
things work out when nobody on any committee or in any position of
responsibility has any economic interest at all in the activity. I keep
hoping a third major rocketry organization will start that can absorb the
people who are not happy with NAR and TRA.

There's room enough and people enough for another model. Be an organizer.
Use your website to rally like-minded souls. Take all this energy and
BUILD something. Don't use all your energy up trying to destroy something
other people built.
Aaaagghh! why do I waste my time ranting about this stuff? The only people
that read it are people who have already made up their mind in advance
that everything I said is 180 degrees wrong. I keep promising myself I
will stop. OK. I'm taking at LEAST a week off.

Bye Byyyyyyye! I am totally OUTTA here.

Talk amongst yourselves. :-)

[Jack Wiker]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>

> There about 10 accessable from 818 area code as a local call. Can you
> EVEN explain how someone elses account could somehow be more accessable?
>
> I have used AOL alot and this is completely beyond belief.
>
> Not that it matters a hill of beans.
>
> Jerry
>

> --.....Jerrry, this is a wholy personal attack, with no relevent rocket
information. It was unneccessary.

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4v0sm0$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fbre...@aol.com (F
Brennion) wrote:

> Please, for the sake of all of us do not MAKE UP stuff and try to force
> people to defend positions they never took.

That is exactly false. You made up allegations about fraud judgements in
favor of Kosdon in the order of tend of thousands of dollars which NEVER
OCCURED AND CAN NEVER OCCUR NOW.

> strengths.... just as building rockets is not among mine.

So get the hell out of the hobby for all our sakes.

Jerry

"I must congratulate you! After having read the postings, I must say that you
take abuse quite well...and have maintained a level of dignity and respect not
found in the on-line morons who slander you..."

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <321548...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:

> Also, Mike advised me that, in the same conversation (with Bruce) that
> revealed the above, Bruce also relayed to him that I was 'power
> hungry'. (?????) *Power hungry*?? How is disagreeing with the Tripoli
> leadership over a possible misrepresentation concerning the bylaws
> considered 'hungry for power'? The only 'read' one can get from this is
> that Kelly apparently felt that, indeed, I *did* want to 'rise further'
> in the organization - and this 'bylaws thing' was merely being used to
> leverage myself further up. Actually, no - I was *genuinely* concerned
> and upset at what was beginning to surface on this issue. I was
> *genuinely* coming to the conclusion that the membership *HAD* been
> 'lied to' about this - which *genuinely* got me upset. They say folks
> will ascribe certain motives to others that, in reality, only express
> their innermost fears. Such seemed to be the case here. This (Kelly's
> 'fears') will be further confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt in a few
> months (June '94 to be exact).

Excellent point!!!

I said that before.

==

> Bruce E. Kelly, Tripoli Board
to
> John H. Cato, Jr.

> It was not more than three days after the conclusion of the meeting that
> we found out, which you later admitted, you spoke with Ross Dunton of
> Magnum, Inc. about the specific items you agreed not to discuss.

> Board. First, just by violating the agreement made at the Board meeting
> mentioned above, you have breached every one of the points you made in
> your 22 page letter concerning ethics, confidentiality, security leaks,
> and so forth. If you cannot see it, I am further shocked. This does
> not even speak to the fact that all of this could have an impact on the
> Association through a lawsuit which has already been filed, thus
> affecting the whole Association.
> (signed)
> Bruce E. Kelly

:)

Jerry

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 41: The 'aftermath' of my architectural commission:

During this weekend (12-13 Feb. '94) while I was deciding on the best
course of action re: this new architectural work, I also had a call from
Mike Platt. Two interesting things from that conversation was Mike
making me aware that the Board was considering looking to an outside
agency to do testing (this from my phone log). I remember this
conversation today but don't remember the specifics of this particular
topic. TMT, at this hour did NOT have capabilities of testing the
*really* big motors (98mm and such), but I was working on that. The
(somewhat curious) 'problem' with this is that I did not get any
communique from the Board itself on this - just 'grapevine talk' (funny,
being the motor testing chairman, one would think some formal
communications would cover this topic). How much did this have to do
with New Orleans? Seems 'connected' to me, that's for sure.

Also, Mike advised me that, in the same conversation (with Bruce) that
revealed the above, Bruce also relayed to him that I was 'power
hungry'. (?????) *Power hungry*?? How is disagreeing with the Tripoli
leadership over a possible misrepresentation concerning the bylaws
considered 'hungry for power'? The only 'read' one can get from this is
that Kelly apparently felt that, indeed, I *did* want to 'rise further'
in the organization - and this 'bylaws thing' was merely being used to
leverage myself further up. Actually, no - I was *genuinely* concerned
and upset at what was beginning to surface on this issue. I was
*genuinely* coming to the conclusion that the membership *HAD* been
'lied to' about this - which *genuinely* got me upset. They say folks
will ascribe certain motives to others that, in reality, only express
their innermost fears. Such seemed to be the case here. This (Kelly's
'fears') will be further confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt in a few
months (June '94 to be exact).

The Feb. 19 test session went smooth (more or less). I was *not* there
(birthday and all) - and they only got 4 motors tested - for good
reason. The first motor on the stand was a Vulcan L750 Smokey Sam (and
I believe this was the FIRST time an L750 had ever been on a Tripoli
stand). According to Will, this 'honker' came on line like gangbusters
- peaking out at over 500 lbs of thrust "like, right NOW" (something
like .030 sec into the burn) - which caused the frangible link to
yield. The sad fact of that was, with the 'link' gone, they did not get
any data from the burn. As the reader will remember, we adopted a
policy of videotaping ALL tests, so we could get pretty good info of
burn times from that, coupled with propellant mass and historical Isp,
we were able to arrive at an estimate of Total Impulse (historically
thought to be around 3800 Ns). Our figures indicated more like
3000-3200 Ns - maybe even less. This caused Ross Dunton to be concerned
and he wanted to know more - so there was a 'plan forming' for him to
get another motor to me to verify this (we'll get to this in another
post or two).

The week following this test session was relatively quiet - no major
phone calls and such. However, it was sometime in this week that The
Tripoli Report - v5n1 arrived, as I recall. This was the 'quickie'
report voted on by the Board in New Orleans to get out 'time critical'
information - particularly the announcement about the 'closure' date of
'personally manufactured motors' - which was barely two weeks away.

I studied this Report thoroughly for something else - and, no, there was
not one word about the bylaws therein. Strike one.

Towards the end of the week (Friday, I think) my 'birthday present'
arrived...

I received a letter from (guess who <g>) Kelly something like that
following weekend - origination date of 22 February. Naturally, the
'spokesman for the Board' had several issues to 'discuss' with me:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bruce E. Kelly, Tripoli Board

PO Box 96
Orem, UT 84059-0096

John H. Cato, Jr.
RFD 2, Box 58
Nicholls, GA 31554-9618

22 February, 1994

John,

I am in receipt of your letter dated 14 February 1994, the content of
which I will comment on near the conclusion of my remarks. It is more
as to why you sent it to the Board, among other related things, that I
want to address.

I thought that we had a productive Board meeting in New Orleans, even
though there were some rough spots to get through. We all knew that
there would be. As the meeting was about to conclude, we, the Board,
had an understanding with each other and everyone else at the meeting
that certain things would be kept in confidence until a moment when the
March or April Tripoli Report was produced. Chuck Rogers, Bill Maness
and myself all made pointed remarks toward you especially. After those
remarks you agreed before the entire Board to abide by that directive.

It was not more than three days after the conclusion of the meeting that
we found out, which you later admitted, you spoke with Ross Dunton of
Magnum, Inc. about the specific items you agreed not to discuss.

(Lesson to be learned: How well can you trust your friends? Better yet,
did you intend this to be "leaked?") Now, just four weeks later, I have
heard "stories" and "rumors" from New York, Kansas, Colorado, etc. etc.
Do I need to tell you that MOST of the Board was livid (putting it
mildly) about this? I was going to write you then concerning it but
decided, as did the rest of the Board, to cool down a few days and let
it go for now.

Just last week I had a discussion with Dennis Lamothe concerning a
letter that I might receive. I say might because Chuck and Dennis
discussed the content of that letter with you and, for whatever reason,
asked you NOT to send copies to the rest of the Board just yet. (I
would like to mention that at NO TIME did Dennis or Chuck discuss the
contents of that letter with me before I received it, or even the nature
of your phone conversations.) I do not like being kept in the dark any
more than anyone else, but when the President and Vice-president make a
judgement call like that, they have their reasons.

Here is the point that I want to make to you and to the rest of the

Board. First, just by violating the agreement made at the Board meeting
mentioned above, you have breached every one of the points you made in
your 22 page letter concerning ethics, confidentiality, security leaks,
and so forth. If you cannot see it, I am further shocked. This does
not even speak to the fact that all of this could have an impact on the
Association through a lawsuit which has already been filed, thus

affecting the whole Association. At that moment, you lost all trust and
credibility with me. I am not the only one who feels this way. Another
Board member told me just yesterday that "He (John Cato) has absolutely
no credibility with me, either." That is not to say that I, or the rest
of the Board, STILL would not like to see you Chair the TMT Committee.
Your talents notwithstanding, I do not know how much longer we will feel
this way. I guess that we were just hoping that trust was a two way
street with you. I personally am wondering if you have the ability to
work with this Board, or any other Board for that matter.

Second, by violating a second directive set forth to you by one or two
members of the Executive Committee, you show outright disregard for
leadership and the use of proper channels. I find it odd that any
architect (especially an architect) would not realize the importance of
order and discretion. I have

----- page 2 -----

had three years of architectural fundamentals and the importance of
order was drilled home over and over. I deal with architects regularly
and they all understand this principal. Where it is true that you are a
person who can make up his own mind, you shold not have sought counsel
and advise [sic] from the President and Vice-president if you already
had your mind made up that you were going to do "your own thing" anyway.

Now to your most recent letter. Fundamentally, I would have had no
problem with your involvement in your architectural venture. As you
know, several Board members are also involved in commercial ventures
that, from time to time, may border on conflicts of interest. This is
why some of us abstain on certain issues when put to vote. However, by
violating on two separate, but recent, occasions Board and Executive
directives, your trust is in question - more especially after your 22
page discourse on the same.

I was tempted to call for your resignation from the TMT Committee.
Someone else may beat me to it. Nevertheless, I will not. Rather I
will ask the Board to require of you to divulge in more detail the
nature of your venture. This is exactly what Gary Rosenfield asked of
Bill Maness and Dennit Lamothe about their involvement in motor
manufacture. This is called "disclosure." Perhaps what you are
involved with is a conflict, perhaps not. It is you who have brought
this into question.

Let me post this question to you: Given the fact that the President and
Vice-president gave you a "go ahead," what did you expect to GAIN by
inviting seven more strong-willed individuals into this? To speculate,
you may have thought that the President and Vice-president may not have
been enough for you. Now let's suppose that the rest of the Board now
says, "No, that appears to be too much of a conflict of interest. We
have voted and moved that you be directed not to do this." What are you
going to do now? Are you going to continue to "do your own thing?" Are
you going to resign as Chairman of the TMT for the commercial venture?
Surely you must realize that your possibilities in that situation are
limited. I want you to remember that, against advise [sic], you brought
this upon yourself when ALREADY given the nod.

You have spoken at great lengths about trust and the need for
confidentiality. Now it is our turn. This Board has not leaked the
substance of the New Orleans Board meeting to anyone, but you have.
Will you trust us as we trusted you when we left New Orleans? I think
that there may be more to this than you are letting on, but I will not
know until you have more fully disclosed the nature of your relationship
with this new group. You wrote this letter for FEAR that some would
feel that a conflict of interest might exist. Therefore, there must
exist a small sliver of doubt in your own mind. How about it, John.
Let's have some "truth."

Sincerely,

(signed)

Bruce E. Kelly
cc: Tripoli Board

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well? The 'word' has been given, huh? (Has anybody noticed my points
previously about how he 'writes to the 'cc' list?? - I think it is quite
well illustrated here.) How many pages does the reader feel will follow
*this* discourse <g>?? Actually, not many (I *sure* wasn't going to
consider 22 pages again - no way <g>). Of course, Mr. Kelly would
answer that question as, "None at all - zero." That is correct - from
Mr. Kelly's 'perspective' - he *DIDN'T* receive a response from this
letter.

I *wrote* one, though.

Dwight and I had talked back in December before my 22 'pager' and he
felt I might do better to have ignored that letter completely -
mentioned an example he had when he was President of the Society for
Georgia Archaeology - about a member that was 'troublesome'. He just
ignored him. I understood even then Dwight's point - but felt (then)
that the Board was getting a skewed perspective and needed something
other than Kelly's 'viewpoint' to go on. I somewhat reacted the same
way, here, with this letter (above). That weekend (26-27) I drafted out
a response to this. Covered most things that were important - but, when
I finished it, I thought again about Dwight's and mine discussions two
months prior and just said, "To hell with it. Kelly is still taking
this approach that he is some 'spokesman from on High' - but I STILL
only see one signature at the end - so, screw him and his arrogant
airs." That was it - I just filed the letter away - as an interesting
'look' into my attitude and reaction to someone I am glad lived 2000
miles away from me.

So, guess what? The *whole* world - *including* Kelly, will get to see
this letter for the *first* time.... next.

---------------

Next in Part 42: My response of 26 February 1994 (it's only 5 pages
<g>)

-- john.

[Dangerous Dave]

On 16 Aug 1996 00:16:00 -0400, fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote:

>DDave wrote:
>
>>Fred, you know for a fact that Tripoli has never and will never be lily
>white with the present administration.<
>
>Daaaaaave! Pleeaaasee stop! I did not say that *Tripoli* was lily white
>(whatever the heck THAT would mean.) I did not AVOID saying it either. It
>simply isn't a subject I ever addressed nor would I care to...( and you
>shouldn't read anything into THAT either) and would be an interminable
>argument to get into. (Is that what you really want?)

Fred, this is a direct quote:

From: fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: The 'CATO Chronicles' (was TRA Sucker)
Date: 11 Aug 1996 22:14:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 67
Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4um41n$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <320D38...@almatel.net>
Reply-To: fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

"Wrong. We were lily white. We knew for sure that a disaffected crank"

>Please, for the sake of all of us do not MAKE UP stuff and try to force
>people to defend positions they never took.

Don't you think people can read what you post? Who's making stuff up?

> Please spend your time on your
>cool website and not trying to create controversy on oddball angles here.
>You will simply wind up with people on BOTH sides of the issues you jump
>in on wringing their hands and begging you to please stop!

You started it. I've been real quiet since someone bombed the hell out
of email account, twice, and then forged my name to a bunch of
messages and bombed other people with it. Then had the nerve to post
on CI$ that I did it. I'm just posting some choice and "selective"
commentary here and there. Kind of like what you're doing.

>This has happened before as I recall. You flooded so many threads with
>your verbal oatmeal and political spewing (which I can only *pray* is not
>biding its time before spewing forth once again (like the chest-burster in
>'Alien') ) on everything that entered your head that people ran screaming
>for the exits and stayed away in droves.

You're neglecting to mention that it was some of your boys that did a
bit of flooding. I post a few threads every once in a while when some
new angle turns up on the way Michael sPlatt and Bruce Kelly screwed
me. Every time I sit down, I get this tingling sensation in the seat
of my pants. It also pisses me off when I get attacked with the same
lies, and a few new ones I haven't heard yet. People just love the
lies and it makes them sick and defensive when the truth is posted.

>We all have our particular areas of expertise. I would tactfully suggest
>that verbal jousting and argumentation is not among your major

>strengths.... just as building rockets is not among mine.

Who's doing any verbal jousting? That's not my intention. My intention
is to keep reminding people of the way Bruce Kelly and Michael Platt,
to name just a few, use the long organ of Tripoli for their personal
gain and have no moral compunction whatsoever when it comes to
spreading lies and screwing the people that support and help them out.

>Errrr...where was I ? Oh yeah...you said
>>There is just too much financial interest involved; including your own
>and Rogers. <
>Oh, please. RAS sells software and books. I makes no difference at all
>whether I am even a TRA member or whether Chuck is on the board.

Fred, there is no excuse whatsoever for any manufacturer or any party
that has a financial interest in Tripoli to operate on the BoD. I've
know for years about the inside deals for years and kept my mouth
shut. Do you see where it's gotten me? I have no intention of keeping
my mouth shut and I will support anyone else that wants to speak their
mind.

> We have
>good products at fair prices that the marketplace seems to like. Other
>folks jump into the market from time to time and pay their money for
>advertising just like we do. If they have good products they stick around

Fred, it takes a hell of a lot more than a good product to stick
around. I personally know of many, many, inferior products that have
been on the shelves for a number of years. I also know of several that
have been in large scale production for 50+ years. Quality has no
bearing on the sale or marketing of any product.

>... if their products are marginal or overpriced or presented ineptly they
>disappear for a while.

That's true of any product.

>We don't need special treatment to sell our
>products.

No, but it helps tremendously.

>Do you see us bragging in our ads that Chuck is on the board of
>directors or that he was the president for a few years?

I would be ashamed, and scared of the legal implications, to have
someone with a financial interest operating on the BoD of non profit
organization that markets products.

>And as for the *amount* of money - cut it out. How many people are making
>even a *poor* living in rocket-related businesses? Two or three?

Sure, I know that for a fact. It certainly doesn't hurt to have an
inside hand.

>You and Bill Wood and Ken Vosecek and Kaplow and McLaughlin and some other
>like-minded disaffected ideologues should DEFINITELY start up a
>socialist-modeled rocket group

Why would we be insane enough to do something like that? We already
have a socialist-modeled rocket group.

>and show the free-market people how well
>things work out when nobody on any committee or in any position of
>responsibility has any economic interest at all in the activity.

Well Fred, what's legal and moral is legal and moral and vise a versa.
The membership has been kept in the dark for many years. Its time they
woke up and smelled the coffee (somewhat different odor than what I
have been smelling).

>I keep
>hoping a third major rocketry organization will start that can absorb the
>people who are not happy with NAR and TRA.

Hey, just assasinate them! :o That would solve all your problems. :)

>There's room enough and people enough for another model. Be an organizer.
>Use your website to rally like-minded souls.

I would rather have enough information in it to allow newcomers an
informed decision.

>Take all this energy and
>BUILD something. Don't use all your energy up trying to destroy something
>other people built.

Who's trying to destroy? I wish I had know some of the facts before I
got involved. I now feel it my duty to keep people informed so they
don't make the same mistake I did.

>Aaaagghh! why do I waste my time ranting about this stuff? The only people
>that read it are people who have already made up their mind in advance
>that everything I said is 180 degrees wrong. I keep promising myself I
>will stop. OK. I'm taking at LEAST a week off.

Take off two weeks! Better yet, take off a whole month. I'll still be
here.

>Bye Byyyyyyye! I am totally OUTTA here.
>
>Talk amongst yourselves. :-)

I thought we were doing great until you butted in.

http://www.ddave.com/ ftp://ftp.ddave.com/pub/ddave/

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 42:

---------------

(clarification: folks probably noticed that I changed the subject line
on my posts a little (dropped the 'sucker' reference). Since Navigator
still threads messages - even when the subject line changes - I saw no
real problems with this and figured I'd just add the current 'part
number' to each. I have been advised that each time something like this
is done, some newsreaders will 'split' the thread. Thus, I am going to
make another change here this time (dropping the 'part numbers') and
then just leave it alone -- jhc)

---------------

I said last that we would see my 'phantom' letter of response to Kelly's
22 Feb '94 letter. Upon reviewing it and bringing over from my word
processor (creating a text file), I realized that there were things
mentioned in it that probably need addressing prior to the letter
itself. Also, upon looking at the 'save date' of the file (10 March
'94), it is a little further down in the chronology. I never changed
the date of the letter (26 Feb), as it was never completely 'proofed' to
go out - at that time, the date would probably have changed to more
nearly match the actual date of completion and mailing. I *started*
this letter on the weekend of the 26-27 - but didn't finish it then.
(As a result of this, each letter that 'went out' from Nichols, from now
on, when copied over to my posts will show a 'FILE:' line at the bottom
- showing the file name on my computer and a 'save date' - for example:
"FILE: Kelly3.doc - 3/10/94")

Also, there are several things that begin to happen somewhat
simultaneously here - and this is part of why the completion of this
letter to Kelly was delayed. One thing, in particular, was the receipt
of another letter from the Board - from Gary Rosenfield - and *his*
questions were more important - and more rational - which diverted my
attention to them. Rosenfield's letter was dated 25 February (Friday)
and, would probably have arrived on Monday, the 28th at the earliest.
(We'll see this letter shortly).

I just think it is better to lay this thing out in as close an order to
how it happened as possible for the reader. That is why we'll get to
these letters of response from me on this 'architectural' issue shortly
(probably in the next installment - part 43).

One thing I noticed in my '26' Feb letter (to Kelly) was mention of some
pretty specific parts of the Alaska Statutes - which meant I had them
available to me. The reader will remember the letter I wrote the Alaska
Secretary of State's office the next day after New Orleans. I also
mentioned then that this letter (eventually) found its way over to the
Dept. of Commerce. Well, the DoC's response was to send me a copy of
Title 10.20 (the Alaska Non-Profit Corporations Act) (we'll refer to
this hereafter as 'the Statute'). Some state's Non-Profit statutes are
quite big (North Carolina's are several hundred pages) - but Alaska's is
clean, small and simple (not a bad thing, BTW) - about 45 pages or so.
Since I cited this statute in this letter to Kelly, they MUST have
arrived here about this time (tried to find the envelope they came in to
verify the date but couldn't locate it). At any rate, that point is
somewhat minor. Point is, I now had before me some very interesting
reading (frown?!?!) Truthfully, it WAS interesting - in that there were
some questions answered - but there were OTHERS that were raised by
actually having the statute before me. One of those was the situation
of the Articles of Amendment (to Tripoli's Articles of Incorporation) -
done in late 1990. For those who are not 'up' on these things - the
Articles of Incorporation are the *highest* authority WITHIN the
Corporation - subservient to the Statute, but higher in authority than
any other document inside the Corporation. Amendments to the Articles
is a very big thing - in that the entire structure of the Corporation
can be changed - PROVIDED such 'change in structure' would be allowed by
the ORIGINAL Articles.

There are TWO ways these Amendments can be 'executed' - one by a vote of
the Board of Directors and the other by the membership. The Statute
spells out very clearly WHICH of these two methods governs. If the
membership has voting rights (like Tripoli) THEY must vote on the
amendment - thru procedures spelled out in the Statute. If members do
NOT have voting rights, then the Board of Directors adopt the
amendment. Upon understanding this distinction, I asked myself *HOW*
did those Amendments from 1990 get 'passed'?? There wasn't any 'vote'
on this by the membership, I *knew* that. And *WHY* did the State of
Alaska *accept* these amendments??? The 'questions' started popping up
everywhere (and my 'feelings' about this whole 'corporate structure'
thing - bylaws, articles, etc.etc. were beginning to get more and more
ominous looking - dang, all these 'changes' going on in the Corporation
and the membership seems to be *completely* 'out of the loop' - just
*what* in the hell *IS* going on here????????) I address some of these
other questions in my letter to Kelly, so I'll leave it at this for the
moment - rest assured, this 'iceberg' that I was just now seeing the
'tip' of was beginning to look bigger and bigger.

I said a few paragraphs preceding that several things started happening
simultaneously here. Mentioned about the letter from Rosenfield. Well,
another letter went out from here in Nicholls on Tuesday, 1 March - to
Maness and Rogers. This covered a few 'committee matters' (one of which
concerned these old firing files from Brennion) but also another,
personal matter. Dwight and I had several talks after New Orleans and
he advised me that, first and foremost, I *needed* to get copies of ALL
the OFFICIAL minutes of the Association. I told him that, to the best
of my understanding, these were published in The Tripoli Report - but
there was some doubt now - both in Dwight's and my mind - about whether,
indeed, ALL the minutes *were* published here. Thus, it was indicated
to simply make a *formal* request for ALL the minutes - and this would
need to go back to 1990 and come all the way to the present. The
wording of my request made it clear that I wanted copies of ALL OFFICIAL
minutes. Then, with that, we could sit down and go thru them and see if
there were any interesting 'events' that either substantiated this
'claim' of the Board's powers over the bylaws or refuted it.

As stated, this letter was drafted on the 28th and went out of Nicholls
on 1 March - TWO copies - one to Rogers (as President) and one to Maness
(as Secretary). I did NOT Register or Certify these letters. There had
never been any question up to this point about some things 'not
arriving' (remember, Kelly's denial of receipt of that 11/22/93 letter
(with those thrust curves) would not surface until LDRS 13). For all I
knew, every letter or package I ever mailed arrived just fine. (Is
anybody wondering why I am discussing this in such 'detail' here? Well,
that shouldn't be hard to figure out, now should it?? <g>) However,
there *was* something that entered my mind about this very possibility
(then) - and, the very next day after mailing (2 March), I went BACK to
the Nicholls Post Office and got them to postmark the file copy of this
letter I had. A 'prophetic' act, actually.

At any rate...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302
28 February 1994
* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

BILL MANESS - Secretary
Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., Inc.
22833 Bothell Way, SE - Suite 1142
Bothell, WA 98021

Re: Misc. Issues

Dear Bill,

There are a few 'committee' matters that need to be discussed and one
matter that is of a 'member request' category.

First, I need to advise you (as Secretary) of requests I have made of
Fred Brennion to turn over the disks of test firings of all the previous
rocket motors tested by the previous administration. The purposes of
this is two-fold: 1) All the records of this committee needs to be, at
least, in one central location. The proper place for that is in the
hands of the Chairman. 2) Inasmuch as the President, Fred and myself
have discussed the need to 'recalculate' the data reduction of these
prior firings to fit with the current work of this committee, one of my
team (Dan Wilson) has put forth his 'offer' to do some software
development to 'convert' this old data into a form consistent with our
current data acquisition and reduction software. This would put the
entire database of firing data of TMT on a 'common footing'. In
addition, there are some discrepancies in the 'tabular' data received by
this committee from the previous work. The firing data will allow
resolution of this problem. I am aware that Fred has been through a
lot, what with the recent earthquake in southern California, and have
sent him an 'E-mail' through CompuServe to that effect. I have,
however, been making requests for this data before that incident. This
does *not* mean that I am becoming adamant about getting this - I am
very well aware that having your residence 'trashed' by an earthquake is
a unnerving experience, to say the least. It just centers on the fact
that this database of data is very critical to this committee and this
organization - and, therefore, needs to be in secure hands. The very
fact of this recent California earthquake is proof enough that 'one
place' is not 'enough places'. We just need to get this resolved at our
*earliest* convenience.

Second, there is one piece of the Tripoli test stand hardware that is
still unaccounted for. This is the Data Acquisition card that fit in
the Tripoli PC XT computer that Bill Wood was using for the previous
operations of this committee. Bill Lewis (of AeroPac) has been
assisting in trying to get this hardware back in our hands and the PC XT
computer was one of the first things he was able to get from Bill Wood.
In my discussions with Bill Lewis, there seems to be confusion as to
whether or not this DA card is actually *in* the computer. There was
some discussion with Lewis as to the ultimate disposition of the
computer, and the committee is of the opinion that the computer proper
is of no real use to us. I consider any final decision on the ultimate
disposition of the computer as between the Tripoli Board and Bill Lewis
- whatever agreement you want to work out with Bill Lewis is fine with
this committee. But, we don't consider that agreement to include the DA
card. There is possible use for this piece of equipment in the future
and, at the very least, we don't want this one item of hardware to 'slip
through the cracks'. I don't know if the card is in the Tripoli
computer or still in the hands of Bill Wood. This is where the 'west
coast' Board members can help us out. Your assistance is respectfully
requested.

The final item is of the 'member request' category. I request a copy of
the *official* minutes of the organization from January 1990 until the
present or, alternately, a signed statement (as current Secretary) to
the effect that the minutes that have appeared in *The Tripoli Report*
(since V1N1) are the complete, accurate, and official minutes of the
organization. Further, I request a copy of the 'larger report' to the
Board alluded to in Gerry Kolb's article in The Tripoli Report - V1N2 -
pp. 11 & 12 and, most specifically, copies of the 'legal correspondence'
by the two lawyers mentioned in this same article (page 12 - bottom of
column 1). I will pay normal reproduction costs associated with this
request. As I said, this just falls under the purview of normal member
requests and has nothing to do with TMT.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr. - Chairman - TMT

encl: printout of text file to Fred Brennion - 11-11-93

cc: Chuck Rogers, Tripoli President

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Maness1.doc - 2/28/94

NOTE TO READER: 1) The reference (above) about that stuff from Gerry
Kolb's 'article' refers to that post previously here in this 'chronicle'

NOTE TO READER: 2) The following is the above referenced 'text file to
Fred Brennion'. This was added to the floppy disks of firing files I
sent to Brennion back in November of '93 (possibly with a printed copy
also - just don't remember). Some of this 'note' to Brennion is a
little 'dry' - but I simply am NOT going edit anything on this whole
issue. The *last* paragraph is where I bring up this situation of the
old firing files.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

11-11-93

fred,

enclosed are the 'dap' files of the APPROVED motors for the three test
dates in question. they are located in separate directories
corresponding to the date of the test. also, they are loaded in order
of INCREASING motor power class and not necessarily by ascending
sequence number - and - each individual motor type is grouped together.
this is a moot point if you use 'file manager' as it will rearrange them
in ascending sequence.

enclosed also is the executable for the 'TRIM' program i wrote to 'trim
down' the size of the 'comma-quote' output from DAP. while not 'overly'
user friendly, it does have some checks and balances as far as input and
output file names. it has a lot of defaults for these, but allows you
to change, if you so desire. the only 'unfriendly' side of it is that
is does not ask for confirmation on the DELETE data point operation. it
does, however, give you a STATUS LINE showing the last operation, so
confusion does not set in (i've found that, when doing a lot of 'trims',
i sometimes almost lose my place.) since most files go from T -2 sec to
T +30, this is the way I have been using it:

delete from T-2 to T-0.25 sec
keep from T-0.25 til burn time +1 or 2 seconds
delete from then until EJECTION -0.025 seconds
keep from then until EJECTION +0.025 seconds
delete from then til the end of the file (T+31 sec +-)

there IS some basic data displayed at the top of the screen to help you
arrive at these time events. i have noticed one problem that TRIM
cannot help you with: on occaision, the data acquistion software gets
confused and finds a data point DURING THE BURN that it thinks is
EJECTION. in that case, is lists the delay as a NEGATIVE number. all
you can do is be conservative with your cutoff points on the DELETE
operation to make sure you capture the EJECTION point. when i get it in
EXCEL, i then trim the data points around the EJECTION event to +/- 5
data points.

on the INPUT file side, the program expects a 3 character manufacturer
ID code (AER=AeroTech, VUL=Vulcan, etc) and a 5 digit SEQUENCE code (a
number, padded left with zeros, as it treats it as a STRING). you can
enter the LEAST sequence code to the GREATEST and it will skip the
missing codes (asking you to go on, though). input file extensions
defaults to PRN (the normal output from DAP) and outputs to a '.CSV'
file extension (the default for input to EXCEL)

the output file flags IGNITION, f(max), f(max)/avg5, f(max)/avg10,
5%threshold, 5%threshold/avg5, 5%threshold/avg10, alt-threshold
(typically 2% - user selectable) from both absolute, avg5, and avg10
values, and, finally, EJECTION. these are classed as 'notes' appended
to the individual data point it applies to - bringing it into a text
editor or spreadsheet will allow you to see these points.

other than that, TRIM works pretty well - trimming a 300K typical file
down to under 50-60K, and does it a LOT faster than working with a text
editor. play with it with some backup files until you get familiar with
it.

i am planning to add capability to TRIM to recalculate the TOTAL IMPULSE
for each of the events noted above (absolute, avg5 and avg10 events)
plus a few more user friendliness. when i get that done, i'll forward
you a copy with the next DAP shipment.

i want you to do some thinking on this 'avg5' / 'avg10' thing in
reducing the 'ringing' problems at startup. the team in florida have
already 'stiffened up' the stand to try to reduce this problem, so some
of this may become moot. as i said on the phone, the 'avg5' result
(averaging f(max) PLUS the next four data points) appears to fit VERY
WELL with the judgement call i would make looking at the curve in a
graph. avg10 just gives me another choice, but doesn't seem to add
anything. my point here is, if this approach works, i want to formalize
it so that everybody can get the same results. i am aware that a 'rule
book' approach doesn't work in EVERY case, but, at least with a little
formalization, we have a point of departure - which is definitely needed
in my estimation. think about it and get back to me.

as we have done in the past, i want 1 copy of the RAW curves (individual
firings) sent to the manufacturer as soon as they are available, plus 1
copy to me and 1 to will meyerriecks in florida. when the 'composite'
curves are finished, again 1 copy each to the manufacturer, me and
will. only then can i feel we are ready to release it to The Tripoli
Report. i have no problem if you want to send a copy to bruce at HPR,
but the Tripoli Report gets priority.

i also want to think of a way to show the DELAY TIME accuracy on your
curves - i would think it might be shown in the 'field' of the graph,
but i know also you are cramped for space. think on this and get back
to me on it. chuck rogers comments about the SEA LEVEL note in the
graph field makes sense, but we are trying to get the actual conditions
(temp, humidity, air pressure) at the moment of the test - so it may be
possible to substitute this in the future - input on this is requested.

we have talked about it before, and i know you have a lot to do, but i
would like the raw data streams from all the OLD tests at your earliest
convenience - but no later than NEW YEAR. i think i remember you saying
that some of this data was from dan meyer off of the aerotech stand and
that it may be in a different format - if so, then we need to get
working on a way that it can be integrated into the new database of
firings. all the information you sent me shows NOTHING on the delay
times of the old firings, and i notice that some of the bill woods
articles in HPR list these times. i very much want to get all that data
in the new format. more info on this is requested.

enough for now -- enjoy -- and thanks.

john

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Bren1.txt - 11/11/93

---------------

We'll get to Rosenfield's letter and my responses both to this letter
and Kelly's 22 Feb. letter....

...next in Part 43.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Dangerous Dave wrote:

>
> Mr. Brennion wrote:
> >Errrr...where was I ? Oh yeah...you said
> >>There is just too much financial interest involved; including your own
> >and Rogers. <
> >Oh, please. RAS sells software and books. I makes no difference at all
> >whether I am even a TRA member or whether Chuck is on the board.
>
> Fred, there is no excuse whatsoever for any manufacturer or any party
> that has a financial interest in Tripoli to operate on the BoD. I've
> know for years about the inside deals for years and kept my mouth
> shut. Do you see where it's gotten me? I have no intention of keeping
> my mouth shut and I will support anyone else that wants to speak their
> mind.

I wonder if the fact of all these 'commercial' interests on the BoD
would have anything to do with the NFPA process? That's one.

See, NFPA regs say no MORE than 1/3 of a Technical Committee makeup
shall be 'commercial'. Tripoli's representation is considered 'user'
(i.e. NON-commercial). Now, does the 'commercial interest' of a former
'president' and his software company - or a current 'president' and his
'publishing empire' have bearing on this? What about the new 'Tripoli
alternate' (Bartel) and his 'commercial enterprise'?? Interesting that
at the recently completed NFPA meeting in Ottawa, Tripoli's 'alternate'
seemed to *forget* exactly *WHO* he was representing and spent his time
handing out Delta V business cards (that *DIDN'T* make a good impression
with the committee, either).

All these folks 'fortunes' hinge to some degree on this 'code' they're
'developing' - and have a 'vested interest' in the hobby growing to the
maximum degree. Exactly *where* in these overall priorities are the
main purposes of NFPA 1127 (i.e. keeping the hobby safe and people
alive) resting?

To be sure, the 'commercial interest' has its validity.

BUT - to 'represent' that under the guise of a 'user organization' is
more than just slightly dishonest.

How many more 'scenarios' shall we look at? This is just one possible
negative impact of commercial interests on the Board of a N-P Corp.

How about the fact of these 'commercial interests' effecting the
policies of the organization - the end result of which could easily
affect the *sales* to the members of that organization that their
'commercial interests' are supplying? You say that isn't done? Time to
go back and read the minutes for a few years.

> >Do you see us bragging in our ads that Chuck is on the board of
> >directors or that he was the president for a few years?
>
> I would be ashamed, and scared of the legal implications, to have
> someone with a financial interest operating on the BoD of non profit
> organization that markets products.

Like a lot of other N-Ps, huh? I wonder how many of this Board really
researched where they 'stand' in the overall 'scheme' of things. (Dang,
shouldn't have used 'scheme', should I?)

As far as Chuck 'bragging', well he 'bragged' in his resume about being
a part of TMT (which was during my year there)- when he didn't do
JACK-SQUAT for ANYTHING the committee did. (except, of course,
'lobbying' for the little '6-up' format for thrust curves - that,
(surprise??) is what, eventually showed up). Other than that one,
self-serving, effort, Rogers was no more a part of TMT than my dead dog
buried out by the 'VAB'. In fact, my dead dog did more to HELP TMT than
he did - did it by NOT interfering with TMT's goals - something Rogers
can't honestly claim.

> >And as for the *amount* of money - cut it out. How many people are making
> >even a *poor* living in rocket-related businesses? Two or three?
>
> Sure, I know that for a fact. It certainly doesn't hurt to have an
> inside hand.

Well, even a 'very poor' living is *still* making money at it. Most
hobbyists make NOTHING at it - they just *spend* a lot.

> >You and Bill Wood and Ken Vosecek and Kaplow and McLaughlin and some other
> >like-minded disaffected ideologues should DEFINITELY start up a
> >socialist-modeled rocket group
>
> Why would we be insane enough to do something like that? We already
> have a socialist-modeled rocket group.

You know, Dave - that term 'socialist-modeled rocket group' sounds
terribly insightful - almost like he understands the 'concept' pretty
well. I don't think I could come up with such a long phrase as that. I
just typically call it a 'regime'.

> >and show the free-market people how well
> >things work out when nobody on any committee or in any position of
> >responsibility has any economic interest at all in the activity.
>
> Well Fred, what's legal and moral is legal and moral and vise a versa.
> The membership has been kept in the dark for many years. Its time they
> woke up and smelled the coffee (somewhat different odor than what I
> have been smelling).

Well Fred (sorry Dave), I believe you (Fred) need to just OPEN YOUR EYES
and look what happened in Motor Testing in '93-'94. Look at all those
'worker bees' that had NO 'economic interest' in the outcome - only a
desire to 'seek the truth'. Look at a chairman that, equally, had no
'economic interest' and shared his committee's view and desire. When
you come out of your stupor, you will see that this 'non-commercial
interest' DID 'show the free-market people how well things work out'.
But, since this strikes fear into the hearts of those that cannot just
'open the gates', trust people and let good things happen, it will never
be a lasting legacy. When you 'open the gates' and let the 'horse' run,
you take a risk. As they say, one who is afraid of a 'risk' is afraid
of doing anything. And, thereby, makes the biggest mistake of all -
doing nothing - which ACCOMPLISHES nothing.

> >I keep
> >hoping a third major rocketry organization will start that can absorb the
> >people who are not happy with NAR and TRA.
>
> Hey, just assasinate them! :o That would solve all your problems. :)

I thought they were already doing that, Dave??!??

> >Take all this energy and
> >BUILD something. Don't use all your energy up trying to destroy something
> >other people built.
>
> Who's trying to destroy? I wish I had know some of the facts before I
> got involved. I now feel it my duty to keep people informed so they
> don't make the same mistake I did.

The only thing 'other people built' was to consolidate the power amongst
a few, select individuals. When we talk about 'destruction', we should
not forget the 'Stalinist' tactic of simply 'cutting off the head' of
anyone who uses his brain and rises above the 'collective fog' - and the
destruction that is causing to the integrity of the organization - not
to mention the hobby as a whole.

"trying to destroy"???? Would somebody please hold up a mirror to these
guys!!

> >Bye Byyyyyyye! I am totally OUTTA here.
> >
> >Talk amongst yourselves. :-)
>
> I thought we were doing great until you butted in.

To paraphrase Arnold... "He'll be back."

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 43:

CORRECTIONS to Part 42:

In paragraph 8, starting with:

"As stated, this letter was drafted on the 28th..."

A few sentences into this paragraph, I make mention of Kelly's denial of
receipt of my first transmittal to the Board:

"There had never been any question up to this point about
some things 'not arriving' (remember, Kelly's denial of
receipt of that 11/22/93 letter (with those thrust curves)
would not surface until LDRS 13)."

The *date* here should have been: "11/17/93" (which was the date of MY
transmittal). The date listed (above) was the date of *Kelly's*
response.

---------------

I've mentioned in the last few posts that the current 'time frame'
(circa 1 March 1994), several things started happening pretty much
simultaneously. I was not joking <g>. Folks will remember that, in New
Orleans - late January '94, the Board decided on setting the 1 March '94
'drop dead' date for submission of personally manufactured motors
without commensurate DOT paperwork. To quickly review, what we're
talking about here is the assignment (by DOT) of an 'EX' (explosive
registration) number. To get this, propellant samples and motor designs
must be submitted to the Bureau of Explosives (BOE) or the Bureau of
Mines (BOM) for testing in accordance with United Nations standards.
They then recommend to DOT the 'hazard classification' who takes this
and assigns the 'EX' number(s) to the article. With that, the product
can be legally shipped in commerce. Without it, it cannot.

This, obviously, means that all this 'process' demands a pretty hefty
'commitment' on the part of some potential 'motor manufacturer'. It is
all but futile for a 'home made' manufacturer to go through all this.
The expense, time and other things would override completely any
financial savings that *might* accrue to making one's motors. And the
*last day* that this was not necessary, as far as TMT accepting, testing
and (hopefully) ruling positively on the results of these tests was
right where we are presently with the chronology - 1 March 1994.

Less than 24 *hours* before the 'door closed forever' on this, I receive
in the mail a 2-day, Priority Mail envelope from Dennis Lamothe. In it
is a 'letter of intent' (more or less), stating his intention of
submitting a 'K', 'L', 'M', and 'N' motor of his own design for
testing. Dennis and I had talked of his 'K' and 'N' motor in the past -
and there was some discussion of submittal of these motors to the
committee. We'll get to that shortly, but I must mention here that,
until the receipt of this 'letter of intent' on 28 February, I had NO
prior knowledge of the 'L' and 'M' motor. We'll get to *this* shortly,
too.

---------------

OK, on to some of this 'stuff' relative to my 'gas on the fire' issue of
the architectural commission. The following is a letter from Gary
Rosenfield - received about the same time as all this other stuff was
going on:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gary C. Rosenfield, Member
Tripoli Rocketry Association Board of Directors
1955 S. Palm St., Suite 15
Las Vegas, NV 89104

John H. Cato, Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing & Listing Committee
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, GA 31554-9618

2/25/94

Dear John:

I am in receipt of your letter dated 2/14/94. I appreciate your intent
on informing the Board of a possible conflict of interest relative to
your position as chairman of the TMT committee.

Before I can evaluate your letter further, I need to know whether or not
the "rocketry related" concern you mentioned is a current or potential
rocket *motor* manufacturer. More specifically, I am interested in
knowing whether or not you will be receiving payment for your
professional services rendered to this concern and then subsequently be
put in the position of testing and certifying any rocket motors which
may be manufactured by them.

I am also interested in why, out of all the architects in the country,
you were selected for this job. This is not at all intended to be a
comment on your capabilities as an architect, simply an observation of
the business judgment of the "rocketry related" concern, especially
considering the (presumed) desire to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

I don't think that having knowledge of a businesses' "proprietary
information" would constitute a conflict of interest. For example, the
simple fact that a particular motor has been submitted to the TMT
committee could be considered proprietary. However, I do believe it is
necessary for you to disclose the nature of your client's intended
business, in order that the Board may render an informed evaluation.

Again, thank you for bringing this to the Board's attention

Sincerely,

(signed)

Gary C. Rosenfield

cc: Tripoli Board of Directors

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I stated previously, upon receipt of this letter from Gary (on or
about 1 March), the *other* letter from Kelly (2/22/94) kind of 'fell by
the wayside'. Although I had started on a response to Kelly, I felt
Gary's points were FAR more valid - and well within his rights to ask.
However, I was *still* NOT going to divulge the name, time frame or any
other details of such nature about the commission. Gary's 'curiosity'
about why, "of all the architects in the country," it was *me* that was
approached is, technically, just that - a 'curiosity'. I really had no
obligation to even answer him on this point - but I did.

While working on my response to Rosenfield, I was also trying to 'line
up' the 'spring testing' (Remember, excepting the 'startup' test on 19
Feb. we had 'been down' for over 3 months. Spring was coming - along
with launches, so we needed to clear any backlog as soon as possible).
After the 19 February test session, Will Meyerriecks had put together an
'oddball' motors inventory listing - motors on hand that did not have
the correct quantities to test. From this, I had contacted AeroTech
about what we had and what we needed to move this on along. This
continued here with another 'check' on Friday, 4 March to try to
coordinate their arrival of our next planned test session - the third
weekend in March.

On Saturday, 5 March, I had a telephone conversation with Ross Dunton of
Magnum about 'scheduling' him getting to me another Vulcan L750 to test
(since the one tested on 19 Feb didn't have any data captured). The
plan was 'gelling' for me to meet Ross in North Carolina at a launch
coming up here in the month of March (Jim Scarpine's group) and pick
this motor up - which we'll get to. In this conversation, Ross
mentioned to me that he had heard there was a 'political controversy'
brewing between TMT and the Board. I mentioned to him it looked much
deeper than he may realize. Ross attested of his agreement about this
'bylaw thing' (the member's rights over them).

On Sunday, 6 March, I had a conversation with Ken Vosecek - former Board
member and we discussed this 'bylaw issue' some (we had talked
previously about this). However, it was in this call that I advised Ken
about what I had found out from the Alaska Statutes about the Amendment
of the Articles done in 1990 and that, from the Statute, those
'amendments' were invalid. Ken was either on the Board at that time or
very near to being on the Board and he gave me a little insight into the
situation - as far as when and where this 'vote' was taken - which was
by the Board at Danville that fall. Ken said he would get together some
of the paperwork he had on it and would forward on to me. We also
talked about this issue of *where* the Board found out about their
'powers' over the bylaws and Ken said that was from a letter from
Tripoli Lawyer Bob Rehbock - in June of 1990 - and that he felt sure he
had this letter, also - to be included in the 'package' of data
forwarded to me. Sounds good.

At any rate...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

7 March 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

Gary Rosenfield - President
AeroTech
1955 S. Palm Street - Suite 15
Las Vegas, NV 89104

Re: Your letter of 25 February 1994

Dear Gary,

I am in receipt of your above referenced letter.

As mentioned in my letter, one of my responsibilities will be "hazardous
construction code research". That implies that there will be hazardous
chemicals handled and stored. Subtlely stated (maybe too subtlely), it
also implies that rocket motors *will* be manufactured (but not
currently). As to your specific question about whether TMT will
subsequently be testing some of these same motors, I don't know what
this entity's ultimate desires and goals are (which could change,
anyway, as time goes on), but I would say at this juncture that there,
indeed, *is* a possibility of this. Whether or not the hobbyist market
is an area they intend to get into, would depend, I'm sure, on market
conditions and other such criteria - which is outside my concern and
knowledge at present. I have simply been asked to provide safe and
correct design solutions for this activity to take place. Gary, I'm
trying to understand the intent of your question here (not that I'm
trying to 'second guess' you, just that I want to answer, to the best of
my ability, specifically the question in your mind). Is it that I will
be *paid* for these services? (I will). Is it that I may be placed in
some kind of 'residual obligation' position in the event this concern
does, indeed, submit motors to TMT? Be advised that any obligation I
have to this concern is *strictly* within the realm of **architectural
services**, and further, that obligation will *cease* the minute
construction is complete and final payment made (which, obviously, will
be *before* the first rocket motor enters the production sequence). The
criteria for approval of motors submitted to TMT are spelled out in NFPA
1127 and it makes little difference to me where the motor came from -
the standards are the same for all who submit. You should realize,
above all, that the Georgia State Board of Architects (as all other
State Boards) *require* of us to submit and swear to a Code of Ethics
for Professional Practice and it is not taken lightly, by neither
practicing Architects nor the Board. I subscribe and submit to this
Code quite willingly. It is this Code that dictated I advise the
Tripoli Board of this commission. While not required (by those on the
outside), it is this same Code that I carry over into my administration
of the TMT committee. I am not talking of 'promises' or 'trust' here -
it is much more than that.

There should be some other questions asked in this vein if we are to see
this thing in perspective. What if this concern were to expand their
facilities at some future date (with the services of another Architect)
and, then, from that new facility, submit some future motors to TMT?
Would they (should they) be denied access to the hobbyist market
because, previously, they had sought and utilized my services? What if
they were definitely *against* going into the hobbyist market but,
subsequently, were 'bought out' by some other group that was in *favor*
of it? By virtue of the fact that they once 'contracted' with me, are
they forever on a 'black list'? Where do we draw the line? I (as an
Architect *or* TMT Chairman) cannot be held accountable or obligated by
whatever decisions, present or future, any commercial concern may make -
that is their business and not mine. As stated, my only obligation to
this client is to 'execute the architectural design problem' - nothing
more.

Concerning why I (specifically) was approached, my own analysis is that
my name has been spread around this 'high energy chemistry' industry
quite a lot of late (even as far away as Holland - on the INTERNET). My
long standing communications with G. Harry Stine concerning codes
(wherein I stated to him in my *first* communication, over two years
ago, that I was, indeed, an Architect - Chuck Rogers and Bruce Kelly
were provided a copy of this, by the way), coupled with my several years
experience in the fireworks industry (where I have been approached -
*two* times, in fact - within the last 18 months to do some design
work), coupled with my own, private research into 'high energy
chemistry' and these national legal issues (BATF, CPSC, DOT, etc),
coupled with my recent appearance at the NFPA Pyro committee meeting
(wherein there were *several* people who either knew I was an Architect
or found out about it before our conversation was over) apparently
impressed this client that I had sensitivity to the issues - which I
feel that I do - and my client is aware of this background. In
addition, you may remember in my 'Miscellaneous Issues' document that I
gave to the Board in New Orleans that I (as TMT Chairman) have been
approached by several people, both inside *and* outside Tripoli as to my
feelings and input on their plans for 'looking into' the rocket motor
business. Some of these people are quite qualified (some, even, with
NASA experience) to seriously consider this type of activity. It is
true that the 'business judgment' could be called into question, but, as
a client seeking design services, they are behooved to find the person
best qualified to do the job. Their judgment was that I was that
person. In some of our preliminary discussions, they have expressed a
very positive response that they made the right choice.

The very fact that there will be, indeed, rocket motors manufactured is
why I advised them that I could not be 'privy' to 'proprietary
information', as I was thinking specifically here of propellant
formulations. As you know, there is no requirement here at TMT that we
have propellant formulations in our testing regime. However, since my
work will involve design of spaces to handle these materials, I will
need to know of quantities, etc. I told my client that, in this case,
for all I care, it is so much 'sand' (or whatever). Gary, this just
gets back to the ethical desire to 'not even present the implication' of
a conflict. Whether it would be or not is really not the issue. If the
roles were reversed, I (as a potential manufacturer) would *prefer* that
this information be kept strictly in-house. As TMT chair, knowing this
kind of information only complicates my life and, in the final analysis,
serves absolutely no purpose, as it will have zero impact on any design
decision I may make as an Architect. Accordingly, these are my reasons
to telling my client to provide me with information strictly on a 'need
to know' basis. Provide me with the information I need to make design
decisions and keep the rest to yourself, as it were.

In closing, I ask that you and the Board also consider the involvement
in this present committee of Tripoli's vice-president, with his interest
in motor manufacturing and, further, the previous chairman of this
committee and his involvement with StarFlight. I only make that
statement to 'broaden the perspective'. In that light, it seems to me
that this present commission I am undertaking is a little pale.

Gary, I hope this has provided the information you desire.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr. - Chairman - TMT

cc: The Tripoli Board

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Rosen1.doc - 3/7/94

I feel very little need to elaborate any further on this to the reader,
as I pretty well covered my points in the letter above. I still feel
the same way today about what I said.

---------------

Next in Part 44: My 'phantom' (i.e. never mailed) response to Kelly's
2/22/94 letter.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 44:

My 'phantom' letter of 2/26/94 to Kelly:
---------------------------------------

As stated, this letter was written, beginning the weekend of 26 Feb '94
- but not finished until after the first of March. Also, with other
things going on, some reflection and advice from Dwight, I just decided,
"To hell with it," and, thus, decided to not mail it to Kelly and the
Board. This letter of 2/22/94 caused a similar reaction to his first
one back in Nov '93 - just a little more firmly - and it was at *THIS*
point that I just wrote Kelly off for good. Inasmuch as his 'ego' (and,
particularly, the *magnitude* of it) was becoming very clear. Coupled
with his tendancy to be the 'official spokesman' for the Board (read
that: "go off half cocked without *any* attempt to see if others felt
similarly"), I knew it was a futile effort to continue to 'spar' with
him. (Remember my conversation with Wacker in early January where he
told me some of the other Board members were not particularly happy with
Kelly's presumptuousness). He was pretty well hopeless in my
estimation. I felt I had tried to 'reason' with the man - and be as
professional as I knew how. Not any more. Everything that happened
from this point forward only further hardened my attitudes towards him.
There was no 'bridge' to salvage in our relationship - it had already
'burned down'.

There are only two or three other people (on the planet) that have even
seen this letter - and Kelly is not one of them (to my knowledge). To
reiterate, the reason for including it in my 'chronology' is to give the
reader some feeling for where *my* mind was at this time - which is
important, in my view. So, for Mr. Kelly and all you others out there:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

26 February 1993

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

Bruce E. Kelly
P.O. Box 96
Orem, UT 84059-0096

Re: Your letter of 22 February

Bruce:

I am in receipt of your above referenced letter. I will take your
points in reverse order and try to explain these things that continue to
bother you.

As far as 'inviting' the entire Board into this (my recent architectural
commission), it seemed only proper to let you know of this. If anything
were to come out 6 months or a year down the road that I was involved in
architectural work related to the rocket industry, I felt sure that
someone on the Board would have made an issue of it ("Why didn't you,
John, let us know of this - considering its relation to TMT?"). I
advised my client, before the letter, that I felt I should let the Board
know about it and their response was, "You've *got* to let them know
about it, John." So there was perfect agreement between my client and
myself about what was the *proper* course of action. My motivations
were simply to be completely open (within the limits of normal
confidentiality) about this activity, *before* the fact. However,
technically, it could be argued that it is simply none of the Board's
business which, in the final analysis, it most assuredly isn't.
Architecture is *not* motor manufacturing.

As far as who's business it *is*, the *only* one on the Board that *may*
have concern about it is Gary (or, for that matter, *any* motor
manufacturer - which is the reason I also sent a copy of that letter to
Scott Dixon - and I haven't heard word *one* from Scott on it). I was
well aware that there might be some questions from it but, if I am to
advise one Board member of it (Gary, in this case), then I will advise
*all* Board member's of it.

As far as this 'second directive', I would hardly call my conversation
with Dennis a 'directive'. Dennis called me on Saturday, 2/12 (mainly
to discuss various motor testing issues), and towards the end of the
conversation, I advised him of the letter to go out on Monday, 2/14. He
asked me who this 'entity' was, and I told him that I could not divulge
the name. His response was, "Well, how can we make the determination as
to a 'conflict of interest' if we don't know who it is?" This sounds
like 'gossip gathering' again. Are there some 'blessed' people that
would not be construed as presenting a conflict of interest, while
others are? It hardly matters *who* is involved. What could matter is
the *scope* of my services - which was adequately and completely
disclosed in my letter (and my recent response to Gary). Dennis'
*advice* was that the letter should go out to Chuck and himself at the
moment, as it would probably be like 'throwing gas on a fire' (what with
my *popularity* with the Board at present). I acknowledged to him that
he may be right, but there were other issues to consider (as outlined
above). On Sunday, 2/13, I discussed this conversation with my client
and our agreement was that (if it is to go to anyone), it *still*
should go to the entire Board. Thus, my action.

This action was not 'seeking advice and counsel'. I was simply giving
Dennis a 'heads up' on it. I made no representation to Dennis that I
would comply with his advice , merely that I would take it into
advisement. I did, and my decision was that it was of secondary
importance. Further, I am under no obligation to comply, anyway, as
this is a personal decision - based on my feelings of the 'ethics of the
issue'. Dennis' concern (as I interpreted it) was that it would just
create a rift and with all the 'ruffled feathers' from New Orleans, I
would simply be further exposing myself to 'pot shots' from the Board.
Sometimes in life we are all faced with doing what we think is right,
knowing full well going in that there is going to be 'flak' associated
with that action. I have heard it said that, at times, there is the
'harder right' or the 'easier wrong'. Such is the case here.

As far as your reference to architects, it appears to me that any effort
discussing 'discretion', 'order' or 'ethics' with you would be merely a
waste of paper, as it is obvious at this juncture that we don't have the
same concept on it. Maybe this organization should put in place a
*requirement* of the Board to swear to a Code of Ethics (as Architects
are required to do). With that, you could develop more sensitivity to
where I am 'coming from'. I invite you to sit down with *any* Architect
in Orem or Salt Lake City and discuss it. Show him my letters (*any* of
them or, preferably, *all* of them). I have all confidence that the
outcome of such a meeting would fit in exactly with the actions that I
have taken.

As far as any Board direction to 'divulge in more detail' or 'we have
voted and moved that you be directed not to do this' (granted, here,
hypothetical), you are WAY out of line on this. If this Board is
content to allow a vice president to serve as a (supposedly) *ex
officio* member of this committee when it is obvious that he is actually
*making* rocket motors and has given no assurance that he would present
a signed document that he would abstain from 'going commercial' (for 10
or 20 years or more), then any activity I undertake (concerning masonry
walls or air conditioners, no less) is simply and absolutely *none* of
your business. I have divulged (more specifically than you had any
right to expect) *exactly* what I will be doing. I will tell you
nothing more - nor will I abstain from pursuing my livelihood.

Now to issue #1. It is interesting that you used the words 'livid' and
'shocked' concerning this issue with the bylaws. It is further
interesting that you did not use the word 'bylaws'. 'Shocked' was
*exactly* my response when I learned Friday night in New Orleans that
this set of bylaws I was given (and the ones that *every other* Tripoli
member has been given) was not the same ones the Board felt were valid.
Since I have never voted on a bylaw change, nor has anyone else I have
talked with, I am no longer shocked, as those bylaws I have are still
the valid (and, for that matter, the ONLY) ones. 'Livid' is becoming
more and more an apt description of my feelings as to the presumptuous
attitude I am beginning to see expressed here of late (in all fairness,
not just from you).

What was my 'agreement' with the Board? It came up when I asked for a
copy of the minutes to verify the notes I took concerning issues with
motor testing. Well, we don't have to worry about that since I haven't
seen those minutes (Surprised? - Not I ). Nor have I discussed with
anyone about what those minutes contained - not because I felt some
obligation for confidentiality, just simply because they hardly concern
me at the moment. There are much graver issues that are the focus of my
attention at present - which, of course, are the bylaws. Are the
minutes to show the issue I raised Saturday afternoon (right before that
l-o-n-g 'executive session') wherein I expressed my extreme concern
about this bylaw issue? I most certainly hope so - but I doubt it will
happen. Since this bylaw issue I raised was not even an 'agenda item',
I hardly feel any obligation to keep the Board's reputation intact on it
- and you shouldn't waste your time trying to put 'words in my mouth' -
my agreement with the Board had nothing to do with this. What if 100
Tripoli members showed up for this meeting? Remember, the very last
thing I told the Board was, "Gentlemen, there is a simple solution here
- just revert back to operating within the ORIGINAL bylaws." I *gave*
you (at least temporarily) a 'way out'.

Dennis Lamothe has advised me that the Board sought the opinions of two
lawyers concerning Alaska Statutes. I remind you that lawyers are
simply people with an opinion - and, further, I can tell you (*exactly*)
how many of them have been proven to be wrong in their opinion -
50.00%. How can I be so precise? Every single court case that has ever
been tried and a judgment reached had one winner and one loser. Was I
to seek a lawyer after the New Orleans meeting? Not with *that* kind of
track record. I went right to the Dept. of Commerce (Corporations
Section) in Alaska within *days* of my return to Georgia (in fact, I
also wrote a letter to the Secretary of State's office THE VERY NEXT DAY
after my return from New Orleans). I am very well aware of Alaska
Statute 10.20.056 - as we discussed it over the phone (with my party in
Alaska *holding in his hands* the Tripoli Articles of Incorporation)
When I talked with Ross Dunton, I already had considerably more
information at my disposal than when I left New Orleans.

The more I 'dig', the more questions I have - to wit:

1) How can you justify becoming aware of the 'vested interest'
of the Board in 1990 and not, simultaneously, wake up to
the fact that it was in DIRECT conflict and '180 degrees
out of phase' with the *proper* rights of the dues paying
members of this organization as spelled out in our ORIGINAL
bylaws?

2) How can it escape you that the proper, ethical, and moral
action was to bring this up to the ENTIRE membership for
their decision (*and vote*), since it was *their* powers that
were simply 'evaporating' without their knowledge and
consent (and the Board's power was *rapidly escalating*)??

3) Why did you not check with the State of Alaska to find out
if it was acceptable to them that we correct the discrepancy
by amending our Articles of Incorporation - which, since
there are NO provisions in our Articles of Incorporation
*for* their amendment (also a weakness), we would fall back
to Alaska Statutes (AS 10.20.176 & 10.20.181) and put it
to a vote of the *entire* membership??? (This was the *first*
question I asked the Dept. of Commerce in Alaska - and the
answer was *yes* - then (1990) *or* now).

4) Why did the Board *consider* the amendment of (and actually
did *attempt* to amend) our Articles of Incorporation to bring
them into accord with IRS requirements for Non-Profit status
(due to no small effort and up front expense by Gerald Kolb),
thereby patently demonstrating that the Board was, indeed,
aware that the Articles of Incorporation CAN be amended
and not, simultaneously, consider a further *resolution* of
amendment to bring them into accord with the 'vested
interest' of the membership as to who *really* should have
the power to amend the bylaws???? (BIG question here -
since, as per the previous question, the only 'official
and legal' way to amend our Articles of Incorporation, per
Alaska Statutes, is by prior notification and vote of the
membership - there is now doubt about the validity of our
Non-Profit status, as there has been NO vote *by the member-
ship* for that amendment - therefore, this amendment of our
Articles of Incorporation is *categorically* null and void
as it is in *direct violation* of Alaska State Law - see
AS 10.20.176). I am very well aware that Gerald was
working under a 'tight' schedule and there is no fault in
his intent or action, but it still doesn't make it valid.

5) Why has it been put forth (by Dennis Lamothe in a recent
phone conversation) that not giving this power to the Board
'inhibits' the Board's ability to conduct business, demon-
strating a blatant lack of understanding that this kind of
power *properly* belongs under the heading of Standing Rules
(one level down from the bylaws)?????

6) Why has this organization *continued* to send out the original
(and still the only valid) bylaws, when the Board KNEW they
were acting under 'another' set?????? On this last ques-
tion, I submit that there is NO justification and NO excuse,
and you have absolutely NO defense for this act of (quite
literally) misrepresentation to the 1000 or so Tripoli
members that joined *after* this 1990 'transition' who have
ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what is really going on (or has gone
on) in the internal affairs of this corporation.

If you want this kind of power, then you will have to reduce the dues to
$0.00, because, as dues paying members of this organization, we (the
membership) WILL have the final say - in ALL matters of how this
organization is to be run. We vote in the Board to represent our
interests based on our faith in their judgment - but this is OUR
organization, not the Board's. You are *servants* of the membership,
NOT masters.

Are these questions I am asking going the affect the organization? I
hope so. Negatively? Let's consider a little scenario. Say, after a
few years of 'positive action' by the DOT (in finally resolving the
shipping issue), a couple of 'DOT guys' decide to join the organization,
"Just to watch what they do with the blessings we've bestowed." Or some
of these 'negative forces' in that 'other' organization that really
doesn't *like* Tripoli. Now that they are members, they have all the
rights and privileges normal to membership. Since that is the case,
these individuals, too, can call into question any item that I have
recently. Would these forces have the best interests of Tripoli as
their motivation? Would they be concerned about making the organization
stronger and more viable? I submit that the answer would be no. Would
this affect the organization negatively? You figure it out.

As far as discussing these concerns with the membership, just about
every member I have talked with feels that I (or we) should write a
letter to *every single* Tripoli member. As one of these dues-paying
members, I have a proper, moral and ethical right and obligation to
advise the other members of concerns I have, or problems I become aware
of - and I *most definitely* will do so. First and foremost, I am a
Tripoli *member*. I made mention *several times* in New Orleans that I
was NOT putting forth that any of this action or awareness from 1990 was
malicious (based on what I am beginning to discover, I am not so sure
anymore), simply that it conflicted with what the majoirity of the
membership were assuming to be true. On the way home I became of the
opinion that the proper response would be for the Board to 'come
completely clean', submit to members and give them a choice. And if
this choice involves giving the *proper* right and power back to the
membership - TOTALLY or even stepping down (without so much as a
'whimper'), then you should do it. If you want to abuse the word
'ethics', then don't do it here, as this is *truly* the ethical action.
In this 'quickie' Tripoli Report recently arrived, the very fact that
there has been no mention that this issue needs to be looked into
waives, in my mind, any defense you could put forth for allowing it to
continue. I have told every member that I have discussed this with that
if I have to stand alone on it, I will. Almost *to a man*, they have
responded, "You won't be standing alone, John."

As far as 'admissions' (related to my talk with Ross Dunton), let me
give you another one, "*Every single* Tripoli member I have talked with
since New Orleans *knows* my feelings and reservations about this
issue." I have told them to reach their own decision on it, based on
their conscience - but that I am going on record as being strongly
against any continuance of this 'mode of action'. You 'threw up' my '22
page book' numerous times in your letter (for, I suppose, to reinforce
any hypocrisy you were trying to expose). Let me distill it down to
THREE SENTENCES for you:

1) "The only point in my policy decision was to limit exposure
to information that is obviously preliminary, inconclusive,
and premature due to the potential for damage *that* infor-
mation can cause." (page 9)

2) "There was no 'truth' here to base this decision on -- only
some 'indications', 'possibilities' and 'circumstances'."
(page 6)

- and finally (and most importantly)...

3) "Where a situation arises that pits this overriding principle
(the TRUTH) against any other 'expediency', political or
otherwise, I will ALWAYS take the side of the truth,
regardless of how unpopular (or dangerous) that position
may be." (page 1)

There is no contradiction with my current actions and my 'book'. If you
are so convinced that I 'speak with a forked tongue', then I invite you
to join with me in a discussion of it IN FRONT of the General Assembly
meeting at LDRS - I will most *definitely submit* to the 'will of the
masses'.

As far as your question about my abilities to work with this (or any)
Board, I remind you that the motor testing committee of the past was
chaired by an individual who worked (and apparently had considerable
experience) in the rocket industry - and, for whatever reasons, things
didn't work out and this Board *finally* (in the 11th hour) took steps
to correct it (almost too late - as far as NFPA is concerned). Now you
put in an individual who did NOT have experience in the rocket industry
(at least to Bill Wood's supposed level), and he pulled it together and
got it working again (and saved Tripoli's 'little butt' with the NFPA)
and, for whatever reasons, there STILL seems to be problems. Now, who
is it that can't work with whom?

Bruce, if you haven't figured it out, this issue is *not* going to go
away. Choose intimidation if you desire, but I have 'chosen the course'
and will 'stay the course'. It is going to demand a decision by you and
all the others as to exactly which side of the fence you are on -
because there will be *NO* middle ground. If you desire to perversely
tie this back into motor testing and 'force me out' as chairman, then do
what you must. But, rest assured, the membership will know the real
reasons why. I can give you a 'heads up' that there are going to be
some pointed, tough questions at LDRS this year. I hope you have the
answers.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr.

cc: The Tripoli Board

p.s. (to Bruce) - I have now 'graced' you two times with a response to
letters that you have put forth as 'we', as though you were the
'official spokesman' for the Board. And every one of your letters have
attempted to cast doubt on the person that I am and the standards I have
set for my life. I know for a fact that there are those on the Board
that are not particularly happy about your continued adherence to this
mode of action. Rest assured that this will be the last response you
receive from me on anything I am involved in - Tripoli or otherwise.
Without nine signatures on any letter I receive from Orem, UT in the
future, I will simply file it away and get to it when I finish EVERY
thing else I am doing (which will probably *never* happen). My time is
simply too valuable to waste it with such nonsense.

p.s. (to the rest of the Board) - I want you to *know* that I,
generally, have good faith in most of you. Unfortunately, there may be
some innocent ones hurt by these issues and their ultimate resolution,
and for that I apologize - that was not and is not my intent. There is
only one proper resolution to this bylaw issue and I will not waiver
until that goal is achieved. My prayer is that you see why.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Kelly3.doc - 3/10/94

The reader will notice in that last 'p.s.' that I *still* indicate some
degree of faith in the rest of the Board. That 'faith' was faltering,
though - and it wouldn't be too much longer before it would drop into
'negative territory'.

There are one or two other points about Kelly's letter (that the above
letter does not address) that I will rebut...

---------------

Next in Part 45: A few 1996 rebuttals to Kelly's 2/22/94 letter.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > I wonder if
> > anybody besides me is tired of hearing this tripe?
>
> I do not wonder.
>
> Jerry
>
> Get your facts straight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jerry, remember - if you hold them to too high a standard, they'll just
come back and accuse you of being a *perfectionist*.

One must not expect from one what one cannot give.

:-)

-- john.

[Mike Vande Bunt]

Dangerous Dave (dd...@ddave.com) wrote:
: On 16 Aug 1996 00:16:00 -0400, fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote:

: >Errrr...where was I ? Oh yeah...you said

: >>There is just too much financial interest involved; including your own
: >and Rogers. <
: >Oh, please. RAS sells software and books. I makes no difference at all
: >whether I am even a TRA member or whether Chuck is on the board.

: Fred, there is no excuse whatsoever for any manufacturer or any party
: that has a financial interest in Tripoli to operate on the BoD. I've
: know for years about the inside deals for years and kept my mouth
: shut. Do you see where it's gotten me? I have no intention of keeping
: my mouth shut and I will support anyone else that wants to speak their
: mind.

Does it seem at all unusual to anyone that HPR printed a letter from Rogers
in rebuttal of a percieved error in an earlier HPR article and that said
letter was longer than all the other letters published for '96 up to that
point added together? Now, it is _possible_ that some other manufacturer
that is not represented on the BoD could have had an equally long letter
(essentially a big free ad for how good the product is) published. The
problem with Rogers being on the board is that this _looks_ like
preferential treatment. (It is at least possible that Kelly was desperately
shirt of material for that issue of HPR and Rogers helped him out by
providing the letter, but it _still_ looks bad due to Rogers position on the
board.)

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <4vacm4$6...@homer.alpha.net>, vvg...@mixcom.com (Mike Vande
Bunt) wrote with true insight:

> Dangerous Dave (dd...@ddave.com) wrote:
> : On 16 Aug 1996 00:16:00 -0400, fbre...@aol.com (F Brennion) wrote whiney:
>
> : >Oh, please. RAS sells software and books. I makes no difference at all

> : >whether I am even a TRA member or whether Chuck is on the board.

Then quit.

>
> : Fred, there is no excuse whatsoever for any manufacturer or any party

> : that has a financial interest in Tripoli to operate on the BoD.

100% correct.

Insight follows:

> Does it seem at all unusual to anyone that HPR printed a letter from Rogers
> in rebuttal of a percieved error in an earlier HPR article and that said
> letter was longer than all the other letters published for '96 up to that

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> point added together? Now, it is _possible_ that some other manufacturer
> that is not represented on the BoD could have had an equally long letter
> (essentially a big free ad for how good the product is) published. The

^^^^^^^^^^^

> problem with Rogers being on the board is that this _looks_ like
> preferential treatment. (It is at least possible that Kelly was desperately
> shirt of material for that issue of HPR and Rogers helped him out by

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
nope! He always writes volumes himself!

> providing the letter, but it _still_ looks bad due to Rogers position on the
> board.)

Only because it is. After all how many products get as much perss per
total sales volume or per retail price? NONE!!!

>
> --
> Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com <*> TRA:4537 NAR:65174

Jerry

"Greatness is noticed."

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 45:

Some '1996' rebuttal to Kelly's 2/22/94 letter:
----------------------------------------------

With the perspective of a few years and the (somewhat <g>) more
'sanguine' viewpoint I hold today relative to these issues of 1994, I
think it would do us well to look at this letter and make a few
observations. I will preface my remarks with Kelly's statements (shown
with '>', as per a normal usenet reply).

(after the fact: I have tended to gravitate towards the end of this
rebuttal as though I am talking to Mr. Kelly directly - which I will
just let stand)

---------------

[par 2]:

> As the meeting was about to conclude, we, the Board, had an
> understanding with each other and everyone else at the meeting
> that certain things would be kept in confidence until a moment
> when the March or April Tripoli Report was produced.

Well, was this an 'understanding'? Or a 'directive'? (see sentence
below). Or, was it *neither*? As the reader already knows, this
referred to my request for the minutes. Exactly *what* would be gained
by 'keeping quiet' "until a moment" when the TR was produced? The only
thing that comes to *my* mind is granting them time to 'get their story
worked out'. This *especially so*, in that this 'moment' when the April
TR was printed, one COULD NOT EVEN ASCERTAIN that a 'vote' on the bylaws
was EVEN IN THE OFFING. Quite literally, the ONLY way the 'public'
could come to that conclusion was finding that one, little 'biddy' in
the minutes about a vote. There was NO (repeat *NO*) disclosure by the
Board as to the 'issues' of concern re: the bylaws. And, it was at
*precisely* this point that I KNEW they were going to try to 'pull one
over' on the members and 'sneak' a vote by on them *without* that FULL
disclosure that ethics would dictate.

This point seems even more 'damning', in that, with my (supposed) 'leak'
to Ross Dunton, the 'cat' was now out of the 'bag' - there were 'rumors'
from all over - so WHAT would be the only, real, *ethical* response to
quelling those 'rumors'? Precisely! - full disclosure. And we can look
back at it today and see - from the *Permanent Record* EXACTLY what
their 'actions' were. There can be NO misunderstandings or questions -
it's all there in black and white in the Tripoli Report.

> Chuck Rogers, Bill Maness and myself all made pointed remarks
> toward you especially. After those remarks you agreed before
> the entire Board to abide by that directive.

I think it most commendable of Mr. Kelly for, at least, *acknowledging*
WHO the three persons were that knew of my 'agreement' - he, at least,
got the parties right. Again, however, he is stretching things when he
says, "...ALL made pointed remarks..." Nope. It was just Kelly, "OK,
just so you don't discuss the contents of the minutes until they are
approved and published."

"Agreed before the entire Board"??? Nope, as I already stated, some of
them had already left the room, others were packing up their briefcases
and, I would venture to guess very few (if any) of these 'others' were
even paying attention when I asked for the minutes.

"..abide by that directive."??? Well, which is it, Mr. Kelly? Just ONE
SENTENCE back, you said it was an 'understanding' (which, indeed, it
wasn't - at least to 'the entire Board').

---------------

[par 3]:

> It was not more than three days after the conclusion of the
> meeting that we found out, which you later admitted, you spoke
> with Ross Dunton of Magnum, Inc. about the specific items you
> agreed not to discuss.

"specific items"??? I agreed not to discuss the contents of the
*MINUTES* I DIDN'T HAVE the minutes three days after New Orleans - so I
didn't know what was in them - and ("sooprise, sooprise, Sgt. Carter"),
isn't it interesting (no, it isn't) that my words were NOT in those
'minutes' - so, even if I DID have them, I could *still* 'discuss' the
things I did with Ross, since what I discussed with him wasn't *IN* the
minutes. As stated, I simply asked Ross if he remembered ever voting on
any bylaw amendments. Geesh, has the 'regime' gotten so corrupt that a
person cannot even ASK A QUESTION?????? Of a FELLOW MEMBER??????

> Now, just four weeks later, I have heard "stories" and "rumors"
> from New York, Kansas, Colorado, etc. etc.

I'll bet you a dozen K motors that, if 100 Tripoli members were at that
meeting (as I posed in my 2/26/94 letter), Mr. Kelly (and the entire
Board) would have heard 'stories and rumors' from a LOT more states than
just those he mentioned (like all 50). And my guess is that these
'stories and rumors' would not have been about the bylaws - they would
have been about NINE heads fixing to roll. You would have had one HELL
of a 'firefight' on your hands and ***THAT*** is why the Board had this
'understanding' to 'keep things in confidence.' Their very survival
DEPENDED on it.

---------------

The reader will note here that Mr. Kelly is 'building his case' as to
some major 'violation of a directive' (again, writing to the 'cc'
list). One *must* ask the question here as to WHY this must be 'kept
quiet'. Mr. Kelly (both later on in this letter and in his 'diatribe'
to show up in the June '94 TR v5n3) comments there about this 'affecting
the Association' with the lawsuit filed by Jerry Irvine. Let's spend a
minute with that. If, indeed, it WOULD 'affect the Association',
EXACTLY *HOW* will that 'affect' be lessened by waiting "until a moment
when the March or April TR is printed"??? Is *time* going to help
things? If there is some 'weakness' in the bylaws (there wasn't) that
could 'affect the Association' by a pending lawsuit, does the reader
*really* think that the prosecuting attorney would NOT find this
'weakness'?? My gosh, I'm not some 'legal professional' and *look* what
*I* found!! If Irvine couldn't do better than find some 'law school
flunky', he could find FAR MORE than I did, wouldn't you say? The
*WHOLE* approach of 'keeping this quiet' means NOTHING - nothing EXCEPT,
that is, trying to keep this 'shakey reality' from being known to the
membership at large - with the concommittant jeopardy it put the
incumbent 'leadership' in - which, of course, IS the 'reality' Kelly
(and the others) were most concerned with. Which is all the more
reason, in my view, that the membership SHOULD know about it. Further,
JUST HOW MANY members even KNEW of that pending lawsuit by Irvine?? (I
knew very little about it myself until New Orleans - on Friday when it
was discussed - but, even then, about all I knew was that it, indeed,
did exist - no 'details' as to what the allegations and charges were or
anything of the sort). Inasmuch as it was *THEIR* (the member's)
organization that was 'on the block', I submit this is (yet another)
violation of the fiduciary responsibility of the Board to simply KEEP
THEIR MEMBERS *INFORMED* of issues surrounding the organization.

The biggest problem I have here with this whole attitude on this issue -
and the 'expectation' of Kelly centers on something everyone has seen
here recently - the 'Kaplow Incident' - of the 'expulsion' of Mr. Kaplow
due to 'talking amongst the masses'. I disagree with the whole concept
of this 'abuse' of TRAs bylaws to 'nail' Mr. Kaplow - but what I see
here (above) is that Kelly seems to be of the opinion that a *member* of
Tripoli (me) cannot even talk with *another member* of Tripoli (Ross
Dunton, in this case). Exactly how far is this attitude to go? This is
the most 'ominous' and 'disturbed' viewpoint in all the above.
Correction: the most *emotionally* 'disturbed' viewpoint.

---------------

[par 4]:

> Just last week I had a discussion with Dennis Lamothe concerning
> a letter that I might receive. I say might because Chuck and
> Dennis discussed the content of that letter with you and, for
> whatever reason, asked you NOT to send copies to the rest of
> the Board just yet.

"Chuck and Dennis"??? Since Mr. Brennion is 'digging in the garage' to
find some of those cancelled checks substantiating RAS's claim of paying
for the advertising, maybe he should also 'dig up' a phone bill showing
a call placed by Chuck to Nicholls, GA here around the first of Feb.
'94. I can guarantee you he won't *find* such a phone bill - as Mr.
Rogers and I had NO phone conversation at ANY time during the *entire*
remainder of my tenure at TMT. In fact, after that phone call in early
December 1993 (the 8th), I NEVER had a phone conversation with the man
again. Nor (and I'll find the phone bill on this) did *I* call *him*.
Nor did an email travel in *either* direction. Nor did any letter exist
(again, either way) between myself and Rogers. Total fantasy on Kelly's
part.

To be sure, I highly imagine that Lamothe called Chuck and advised him
of this - and that's OK with me, anyway - as, by the time Dennis talked
with Chuck, I had pretty well reached the (proper) decision to advise
the entire Board. But, to 'paint the picture' that there was a
three-way 'conference' with the two 'top dogs' of the Executive
Committee is a total lie.

---------------

[par 5]:
> Here is the point that I want to make to you and to the rest
> of the Board. First, just by violating the agreement made at

> the Board meeting mentioned above, you have breached every one

> of the points you made in your 22 page letter concerning ethics,

> confidentiality, security leaks, and so forth.

This sounds pretty bad - "violating" an 'agreement' (now we have yet
*another* word for this - first: 'understanding', then: 'directive' and
now: 'agreement') and it 'breaching' *every* point on 'ethics,
confidentiality, security leaks...' As I stated in my letter, why waste
time discussing 'ethics' with this guy - that word simply does not exist
in Mr. Kelly's vocabulary - unless it is under the heading of "words to
try to understand in the future". <good luck, Mr. Kelly>

There's a couple of principles in my Code of Ethics that, apparently,
Mr. Kelly *really* doesn't understand that maybe we should get out here
on the table for him:

1) "Knowing of unethical behavior and not reporting it is,
*itself*, unethical behavior."

2) "An employee is NOT obligated to comply with a demand of
an employer to perform an unethical act."

Both of these principles have *particular* application here in the case
of Tripoli and its 'leadership'.

> If you cannot see it, I am further shocked.

Well, Mr. Kelly, I cannot see it - so buckle your seatbelt.

> This does not even speak to the fact that all of this could have
> an impact on the Association through a lawsuit which has already
> been filed, thus affecting the whole Association.

Well, this 'lawsuit' was not filed on acts that *I* committed - it was
filed on acts that *you* (and your 'buddies') committed. Good luck with
the membership if you lose that 'lawsuit' - for I imagine they will
definitely 'want your head'. Maybe the Board needs to pause for a
second and ask themselves just how much their acts 'affecting the whole
Association' continually puts the long term health of the Corporation at
risk. Maybe the membership should pause and reflect on that, too.

> At that moment, you lost all trust and credibility with me. I am
> not the only one who feels this way. Another Board member told

> me just yesterday that "He (John Cato) has absolutely no credi-
> bility with me, either."

<Was he paying me a compliment???>

"Thanks, Bruce!!"

> I personally am wondering if you have the ability to work with
> this Board, or any other Board for that matter.

Mr. Kelly and I *both* understand why he would feel this way.

---------------

[par 6]:

> Second, by violating a second directive set forth to you by one
> or two members of the Executive Committee, you show outright
> disregard for leadership and the use of proper channels.

<Here we go with these 'directives' again>

Well, which was it? One... or Two members of the Excutive Committee?
Don't you remember, Bruce?

I didn't see any 'leadership' to 'outright disregard', actually. What
'proper channel' should a person utilize to communicate his concerns to
his fellow members about a 'leadership' running off the deep end?

> I find it odd that any architect (especially an architect) would
> not realize the importance of order and discretion.

I find it odd that Mr. Kelly would count himself *qualified* to speak to
*anything* about the profession of Architecture - *even with* his 'three
years of architectural fundamentals'. It's obvious he didn't learn very
much from that effort - the absolute MOST 'fundamental' thing is plain
and simple *honesty*. Get that right, and you just about 'got it all'.
Of course, that applies just about everywhere.

> ...and the importance of order was drilled home over and over.

"Order"? *Order*???? What are we talking, here? Some 'blind
adherence' to some 'rules of the Universe' (which is what it sounds like
to me in the context of his diatribe about an individual (me) that
(apparently) doesn't understand 'leadership and proper channels').
Bucky Fuller and Frank Lloyd Wright could tell Mr. Kelly a thing or two
about 'order' - where it applies and when to 'throw it out the window'.
It appears this 'drilling' was so total that it *completely* removed Mr.
Kelly's ability to just *THINK*. And it sure supplanted whatever
'positive traits' that used to be in his psyche as to *respect for
others*.

> ...you should not have sought counsel and advise [sic] from the
> President and Vice-president...

Well, I guess it's good that I didn't, then, isn't it?

---------------

[par 7]:

> However, by violating on two separate, but recent, occasions
> Board and Executive directives, your trust is in question
> - more especially after your 22 page discourse on the same.

<looks like he's finally made up his mind on 'directives'>

Since Mr. Kelly's *main purpose* here is to 'build the image' that I am
capable of more 'violations' than he is (I've now got TWO 'black marks'
to his ONE), we can just forget about *HIS* 'violation' that started
this whole thing. One of his *most typical* tactics - when painted into
a corner, the classic (and child-like) approach is to say, "Ooooh, look
over there!!" (to distract attention from the fact that he got caught
with his hand in the 'cookie jar').

However, since his mind has become 'fixated' on the fact that these
'violations' are what 'build his case', even though he KNEW they were
NOTHING like a 'directive' and the second one counted for absolutely
ZERO in even qualifying as an 'agreement', his imagination is
(perversely) working overtime - or else he's lost touch with reality --
or both.

---------------

[par 8]:

> I was tempted to call for your resignation from the TMT Committee.
> Someone else may beat me to it.

I *TRULY* regret not saving us ALL the trouble and beating ALL of you
'to it'. I won't make THAT mistake again.

> This is called "disclosure."

If Mr. Kelly had 10,000 dictionaries and with wisdom of Solomon at his
disposal, he could not BEGIN to understand 'disclosure'.

---------------

[par 9]:

> Given the fact that the President and Vice-president gave you a
> "go ahead," what did you expect to GAIN by inviting seven more
> strong-willed individuals into this?

I *expected* the lot of you to respect my desire to be open and
straightforward with you. I did *not* expect it to be run thru the
'convoluted recesses of your evil little mind' and twisted into some
kind of UNethical act - like you can tell the difference, anyway.

> What are you going to do now? Are you going to continue to "do

> your own thing?" Are you going to resign as Chairman of the TMT
> for the commercial venture? Surely you must realize that your
> possibilities in that situation are limited.

I was going to continue to pursue my livelihood. If that 'bothered
you', then I was expecting you to find another 'chairman'.
'Possibilities are limited'??? This is just plain SAD - that Mr. Kelly
is so enamored with such 'delusions of grandeur' that being involved in
a pure volunteer effort for a little 'hobby club' is supposed to,
somehow, hold out *more* possibilities than a profession. Sad. *Very*
sad.

> I want you to remember that, against advise, you brought this

> upon yourself when ALREADY given the nod.

Well, *why* the hell did you even write this letter, then???? Exactly
*where* do you get off feeling *your* opinion is supposed to, *somehow*
(???) carry more weight than the President and Vice-president?? You
could have taken it for what it was - an attempt to be honest with you
and just left it at that.

---------------

[par 10]:

> You have spoken at great lengths about trust and the need for
> confidentiality. Now it is our turn.

I was simply being honest and straightforward. Now, it is YOUR turn.

> This Board has not leaked the substance of the New Orleans Board

> meeting to anyone,...

And "this Board" hasn't "leaked the substance of the New Orleans Board
meeting to anyone"... even TO THIS VERY DAY (August 1996). Shame on
you!

> Will you trust us...

I trust people who are trustWORTHY. That should answer your questions
pretty clearly.

> You wrote this letter for FEAR...

I wrote that letter out of a desire to be HONEST and TRUTHFUL. And it
is *that* trait that most strikes FEAR into *your* heart.

> How about it, John. Let's have some "truth."

As you wish.

---------------

Next in Part 46: The 'issue' explodes on CompuServe

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr. <jcato@almatel.]

---> This message gated from Fido at 1:255/9.0
---> Original message by John H. Cato, Jr. <jcato@almatel.

Path: scratchy.mis.ca!news.unb.ca!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsf
eed.internetmci.com!peach!news From: "John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net>
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: The 'CATO Chronicles' Date:
Mon, 19 Aug 1996 01:24:11 -0400 Organization: JHCjr - Architects Lines:
327 Message-ID: <3217FA...@almatel.net> References: <31F9D23B.1E94@almate
l.net> <31FB0A...@almatel.net> <31FC56...@almatel.net>
<31FDD2...@almatel.net> <32005D...@almatel.net> <3206E0B2.385D@alma
tel.net> <320831...@almatel.net> <320D37...@almatel.net>
<320D38...@almatel.net> <321017...@almatel.net> <3212BF43.19D8@alma
tel.net> <321548...@almatel.net> <3216C0...@almatel.net> Reply-To:
jc...@almatel.net NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-13.almatel.net Mime-Version:
1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b7 (Win95; I)

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 43:

CORRECTIONS to Part 42:

In paragraph 8, starting with:

"As stated, this letter was drafted on the 28th..."

A few sentences into this paragraph, I make mention of Kelly's
denial of receipt of my first transmittal to the Board:

[0x9]"There had never been any question up to this point about

some things 'not arriving' (remember, Kelly's denial of receipt
of that 11/22/93 letter (with those thrust curves) would not
surface until LDRS 13)."

The *date* here should have been: "11/17/93" (which was the
date of MY transmittal). The date listed (above) was the date
of *Kelly's* response.

---------------

I've mentioned in the last few posts that the current 'time
frame' (circa 1 March 1994), several things started happening
pretty much simultaneously. I was not joking <g>. Folks will
remember that, in New Orleans - late January '94, the Board
decided on setting the 1 March '94 'drop dead' date for sub

--- DLGMail
* Origin: The Mad Scientist's BBS Supra V32bis FREQ (1:255/9.0)

[sallen1@earthlink.net@earthlink.net]

wow.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Note to folks out there:

The 'message' below has got me baffled - and looks like total garbage.
My only understanding of it is that usenet apparently got confused
somehow and just put something thru the 'blender' <g>

Ignore it - it is basically junk.

-- john.

---------------
Beginning with....

>
> ---> This message gated from Fido at 1:255/9.0
> ---> Original message by John H. Cato, Jr. <jcato@almatel.
>
> Path: scratchy.mis.ca!news.unb.ca!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsf
> eed.internetmci.com!peach!news From: "John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net>

(snip, snip, snip)

> --- DLGMail
> * Origin: The Mad Scientist's BBS Supra V32bis FREQ (1:255/9.0)

Ending with ^^^^^^^^^^^

[Darrell D. Mobley]

John, having run a BBS for more than 10 years, and experiencing the
movement of networked message echoes, I can almost assure you that what
you witnessed above was a BBS bounce of a Usenet message that entered a
BBS message forum and got re-routed *back* onto Usenet, probably meant to
go to other BBSes in the network, rather than back to us.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 46:

Observations from Part 45:
-------------------------

I am aware that I engaged in a little bit of 'sniping' in my '1996
rebuttal' to Kelly's letter last. I say I am trying to stay away from
that - but this whole effort has kind of brought forth some of the same
feelings I felt back then. As I stated back near the beginning of all
this, I still harbor some anger about all these events, which is true.
I probably will exhibit another 'bout' or two of anger before this is
over. But that is what I'm trying to do here - TO GET THIS OVER -
totally, openly, finally and completely. I beg the reader's indulgence
in those moments of anger - I'll try to keep that in check as best I
can.

Corrections to Part 44:
----------------------

Some may have noticed the date on my 'phantom' letter to Kelly as being
26 February 199*3* - which is in error - it should be 1994. The reason
for this is that, early on in this 'chronicle', I created a text file
'header' that included the TMT letterhead (up thru the horizontal line
before the addressee) - all appropriately spaced to 70 columns. This
just saved time in getting that part of my letters into my posts, and
just required correcting the date - BUT, the date of this 'header file'
was 9 December 1993 - and I inadvertantly overlooked the 'year' portion
and it got 'left' as '93 on this particular post. Sorry - we sure don't
need any *additional* things confusing this very complicated tome.

Observations from Part 44:
-------------------------

I.

In my letter of 26 Feb, where I begin to dicuss 'Issue #1' - and,
particularly, the sentences:

"Are the minutes to show the issue I raised Saturday afternoon
(right before that l-o-n-g 'executive session') wherein I
expressed my extreme concern about this bylaw issue? I most
certainly hope so - but I doubt it will happen."

I think this illustrates a somewhat 'prophetic' understanding of things
- in retrospect. But, then, it *wasn't* that hard to figure out, either
<g>.

II.

Further down in my letter - after I 'distill' my 3 Jan letter down to
three sentences, I make the comment:

"If you are so convinced that I 'speak with a forked tongue',
then I invite you to join with me in a discussion of it IN
FRONT of the General Assembly meeting at LDRS - I will most
*definitely submit* to the 'will of the masses'."

There have been a few (mainly over on CIS), that have given me some
grief that I have NOT done what I stated above. OK, I'll give them that
to a degree. However, Mr. Kelly (or Rogers) and I did not ever have
that 'discussion of it IN FRONT of the General Assembly at LDRS'. There
was an 'assemblage' of people in Wichita at LDRS 13 Thursday night - but
it would *hardly* classify as the 'General Assembly' (which, in reality,
would have been *Saturday* night, anyway). I am not trying to play
'word games' here. The image in my mind of this being discussed before
the membership was under the assumption that the meeting would involve
every member there at LDRS, that it would have been a *fair forum* of
debate and discussion (i.e. EACH person having his proper right to the
floor to present his side) and the membership making an *informed*
decision based on a (moderate) grasp of the FACTS - none of which
actually transpired. We'll discuss more of this meeting as we get to
it.

---------------

A few more observations are indicated at this juncture:

1. In light of my 'policy' within TMT about the confidentiality of
problematic testing results and our test dates, I bring the reader's
attention to my letter to Rogers (9 Feb '94 - see Part 39). Even though
I felt it proper for some of these things (due to the problems from the
Fall of '93) to remain within the committee, the letter just referenced
DID, in fact, advise the President of the 'status' of things - and, the
reader will note, when our next test date would be. No big deal, really
- but maybe that illustrates that I was NOT trying to 'scurry back into
the cave and 'do my own thing' without keeping the Tripoli leadership
informed'.

2. This next point is pretty obvious - and I expect most have seen it -
but I think it appropriate to note that the recent letter from Kelly
(2/22/94) is, basically, 'picking' at me about the EXACT OPPOSITE thing
from the previous fall. In November '93, Kelly is upset and raising an
issue that I set in place a policy that *excluded* certain information
from him (and the rest of the Board). Now, here in February '94, he is
giving me 'grief' because I am *providing* him (and the rest of the
Board) information - instead of keeping it either a) to myself - or - b)
just between me and the Executive Committee. <"Gee, Bruce, just EXACTLY
*WHAT* is it going to take to make you happy?"> Such a paradoxical
situation has NO solution in any real sense. The most important
conclusion that is clearly illustrated by this 'situation' is that,
indeed, it is NOT this 'information' that is of concern to him. (I never
thought that it was, actually) He reveals pretty clearly what his mind
is fixated on in the comment:

"Second, by violating a second directive set forth to you by

one or two members of the Executive Committee, you show out-
right disregard for leadership and the use of proper channels."

(as well as many comments back in his 11/22/93 letter)

I can sarcastically refer to this 'regard for leadership' as (more
accurately) 'worship' - but I won't do it here (I just did, tho, didn't
I <g>). Seriously, Kelly wants me to follow 'proper protocol' and
acknowledge the 'chain of command' - even though that 'protocol' is
something defined in his own mind. Sorry, I flunked ESP in college - I
can't read his mind (oh, I could say something here <g>) and, as I have
seen (both before and after) that what's 'in his mind' changes with the
winds - so it would be a futile effort, anyway. BTW, is 'protocol' more
important than the success of committee efforts? Not in my mind - if
'protocol' interferes with the attainment of Corporate Objectives, it's
time to throw it out and find something better.

The bottom line in this is that there would be NO way to satisfy him -
short of 'bowing' to his ego. Sorry. I wasn't paid $80,000 a year to
perform the duties I was doing with TMT - it was for free. This should
not be taken to mean that I can't (or couldn't) understand where my
'place' was in the overall 'chain of command' within Tripoli. I will
not, however, elevate either *my* position *nor* his to some 'lofty'
position of respect or wisdom. We simply (*both*) had certain duties to
perform for the Association. Mine was assuring the goals of TMT were
achieved. His was 'directing' (I guess) - but, in any event, Kelly's
duty was NOT 'interfering' nor 'discrediting' nor 'undermining' nor
'jeopardizing' the proper goals for the Corporation. Should he have my
respect as one of the 'blessed nine'? Only if he is deserving of it -
and every letter he sat down to write only further destroyed that
respect that I (may) have had for him at one time. I will *give*
respect - but only to the deserving - and I simply could not see that
Kelly was deserving.

---------------

The 'breakout' on CompuServe:
----------------------------

I knew, with where we were in the chronology, that the bylaws issue was
fixing to 'break out' of the back room - to the networks. With all that
went on after, I had simply forgotten how the issue becoming public
started - and, after my last post (Part 45), I went back thru the
'archives' in WinCIM to find where the story first broke - and it was
actually quieter than I remembered. The 'story' was spreading, to be
sure - but it was more by 'word of mouth' than anything (typical rumors,
naturally). There is a 'catalyst issue' that finally DOES cause a
'chain reaction' - but this is around the first of April '94 and we'll
wait just a bit before we get to it.

Also, with the lack of any 'information' in the Feb TR (v5n1), I came to
the realization that I probably WOULD have to write a letter to the
membership (my 'Open Letter' that shows up in the June issue v5n3) and
start about this time with the planning and outlining of the points I
want to make.

However, on 5 March, one little 'post' surfaces (on CIS) that,
technically, signals the beginning of "The Great Tripoli Bylaws Fiasco
of 1994" (from the *public's* perspective, anyway) and this is by a good
friend in Atlanta:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subj: Tripoli Bylaws Section: Sport Rocketry
To: Bruce Kelly Saturday, March 05, 1994 9:21:19 PM
From: John E. Kemker, III, 72172,2017 #204949

Rumor has it that the Tripoli Bylaws were changed by the Tripoli Board
of Directors over three years ago.

Out of curiosity, where can I find a recent copy of the Tripoli Bylaws?
If they have not been published, will they be incorporated into the new
handbook? Speaking of the new handbook and Yellow Pages, when are they
due out?

--John K.
TRA #2499
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John is now Prefect of Tripoli Atlanta (TARA) (wasn't then - '94) and
his 'question' was more of a 'probe', as I had discussed the issue that
surfaced in New Orleans with folks around here locally and John's post
was more on some encouragement by some folks in the Atlanta area.

Kelly came back to him (PUBLIC) about 24 hours later with the following:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subj: Tripoli Bylaws Section: Sport Rocketry
To: John E. Kemker, III, 72172,2017 Sunday, March 06, 1994
8:39:29 PM
From: BRUCE KELLY, 71161,2351 #205161

John,

Yes, and yes. Both of these are being worked on even as we (speak). They
will be out and the HB will have the complete By-laws and other updates.
EVERY member will get one of each. I will post a note to tell everyone
when they have been mailed.

B Kelly
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I also responded to John (about 3 hours after his initial post - which
means it was BETWEEN the exchange above ) - but PRIVATE (i.e. NOT
visible to any but the recipient), and, in it, I brought up one thing
that I simply had forgotten (in the present day) (from my talks with the
State of Alaska right after New Orleans):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

------- PRIVATE FORUM POST -------

Subj: Tripoli Bylaws Section: Sport Rocketry
To: John E. Kemker, III, 72172,2017 Sunday, March 06, 1994
12:38:01 AM
From: JOHN H. CATO, JR., 73551,1730 #205022

John,

Being a 'moderately' new member, you may not have ever received the
Tripoli Handbook - which has the original bylaws in it (I don't know if
you have it or not - don't know when headquarters ran out of them).
Plans are to put out a new handbook before (or about) the end of the
month (March) that should have whatever bylaws the Board is now
'operating under'.

(a little quiet head's up):

I'm sure you've been talking with Tim on this bylaw issue, but I don't
know how much you know - this is it in a 'nutshell':

In 1990 the Board became aware that Alaska Statutes 'allowed' the Board
to amend the bylaws - specifically, that our Articles of Incorporation
'permit' it (by a somewhat 'lazy default') and they have precedence over
our ORIGINAL bylaws (wherein the right is reserved to the membership).
The Board (for whatever reasons) chose NOT to be completely forthcoming
in letting the members know of this. I found this out at the New
Orleans Board meeting in January. I 'challenged' the validity of their
right to do this (and ruffled a LOT of feathers in the process). My
contention is that it is the 'proper' right of the members to have this
power and NOT the Board's. In talking with the State of Alaska, I
discussed 'means' to correct the problem and the guy I talked with in
the Dept. of Commerce said that we would NEED TO KEEP THIS QUIET due to
the fact that, if the Board found out and were inclined, they could
amend the bylaws to remove any power we have as members to do anything
about it - said that there are a few other corporations in Alaska where
the members HAVE lost all power. This is the reason I have not come
forward on CIS to 'bring this out in the open' (plus the fact that there
are others out here that would 'dearly love' to put Tripoli down). I am
working on an 'Open letter to the Tripoli membership' to discuss this
(plan on putting it in The Tripoli Report in the May/June issue). I
request that you let this little thread die a quiet death - there are
plenty of things 'going on behind closed doors' to work this out to the
benefit of the 'proper' rights of the Tripoli members. If you want to
talk about it 'privately' I will be glad to discuss it with you. Right
now, the Board is 'pretty hot' with John Cato for trying to discredit
them (not that they don't deserve it). I hope you plan on being in
Kansas this summer - because IT IS GOING TO BE A DOOZY!

-- John.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kemker got back with me (EMAIL) and stated that, indeed, his post was
the result of some 'prompting'. He also understood my point about 'mum'
and agreed to just let it drop.

I got back to John (EMAIL) early the next morning:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: John H. Cato, Jr., 73551,1730
TO: John E. Kemker, III, 72172,2017
DATE: 3/7/94 1:44 AM

Re: Copy of: Tripoli Bylaws

John,

Got your message. I salute your 'noble' way of taking it. I realized
after I posted it that it was *possible* you could take it wrong -
thanks for not.

Please understand that *in no way* am I concerned about 'taking the
heat' from the Board on this issue - *any* discussion that comes from
*any* place will be traced back to me - and that is perfectly OK with
me. My ONLY concern on any 'public' disclosure of the bylaws validity
centers on what I told you last - that the State of Alaska *recommended*
that we do this quietly. The guy I was talking to obviously understands
(and is sympathetic to) the rights and desires of the 'regular' Tripoli
member - and it was his suggestion that 'tempered' my desire to 'go
public' with it. There have been others that, also, wanted to post this
out here on CIS, but I also advised them of what *I* had been advised
and they, also, agreed, as you do.

BTW, on Saturday I received the COMPLETE Alaska Non-profit Corporations
Act (all of Title 10.20) and have been doing further research. There
*are* provisions for the State to initiate (at member request)
'involuntary dissolution' proceedings if "the acts of the directors or
those in control of the corporation are illegal, oppressive or
fraudulent", so we *still* have options, EVEN IF the Board got real
aggressive and tried to 'shut us out'. That is a relief. However, this
could cause other problems for our organization (redoing IRS non-profit
status, NFPA representation, etc.) and I prefer to try to 'fix it'
rather than 'do away with it'. But, if worst comes to worst, I will
swing over to the side in favor of dissolution. That is not my desire
at present.

I would not mind (and, really, *encourage*) you sharing this with Tim.

BTW, I can almost GUARANTEE that Bruce will respond to your question in
'private'. I would be very interested in what he has to say.

Thanks again for your understanding. -- John.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This final post in our discussion ties down exactly WHEN I got the
Alaska Statutes - 5 March '94. Also, I note that Kelly would probably
respond private - which he didn't. My only guess as to why I didn't
know this is that I must have composed this email before logging on and,
therefore, didn't know of Kelly's response waiting. However, Kelly has
posted public AND private messages and could have here - I never talked
with John to see if that happened. No matter.

There really was no other 'public' discussion (on the networks) of this
issue for the remainder of the month of March '94. There were MANY
private ones, though. As this thing builds to the 'boiling over' point
and thereafter, the reader should understand that the *whole* thing
amounted to, literally HUNDREDS of posts, emails, and such - and there
would be NO way to relay all that out here in this discussion. I will
pick the most pertinent ones to relay. Any that are here that were over
on CIS back in the spring of '94 may still have some of this - or,
maybe, a friend might. There were NUMEROUS threads on this - 'Tripoli
Bylaws', 'The Truth about Article XI', 'Tripoli Board', 'Tripoli
Troubles', and on and on.

I've heard that RMR can sometimes be a 'hotbed of politics' <g>. Sorry,
guys - CIS just *beat the pants off of you* back between April and
August of 1994 <g> (if what I've seen so far out here on RMR is any
indication).

---------------

There is another particularly important discussion that occurs right
about the time I sent my response back to Rosenfield (3/7/94) that we'll
get to....

...next in Part 47.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Mike Vande Bunt wrote:
>
> Does it seem at all unusual to anyone that HPR printed a letter from Rogers
> in rebuttal of a percieved error in an earlier HPR article and that said
> letter was longer than all the other letters published for '96 up to that

> point added together? Now, it is _possible_ that some other manufacturer
> that is not represented on the BoD could have had an equally long letter
> (essentially a big free ad for how good the product is) published. The

> problem with Rogers being on the board is that this _looks_ like
> preferential treatment. (It is at least possible that Kelly was desperately
> shirt of material for that issue of HPR and Rogers helped him out by

> providing the letter, but it _still_ looks bad due to Rogers position on the
> board.)

Mike, was on the phone with Ken Vosecek (former TRA Treasurer) just
yesterday and he was relaying to me examples of him trying to clear old
expense vouchers due the Association re: *The Tripolitan* (the *Tripoli
owned* successor to HPR). Apparently, there were incidents (note:
plural) of Mr. Kelly not 'clearing' his expenses with the Treasurer and
Mr. Rogers (then 'president') getting quite upset with Ken for pressing
the issue - even though this was on a Board vote and commitment to CLEAR
all past due accounts. Some of you newer members do not know - but
there are those of us who were around back then that remember Tripoli HQ
being SHUT DOWN due to NO funds to operate on... SEVERAL times. Some of
the financial problems TRA was going thru back then made many of us
wonder if the Association would last til the end of the next month.
But, Mr. Kelly didn't seem to mind so much - what with some REAL budget
overruns on the magazine he was publishing (these things are noted in
the minutes). And THESE are some of the issues and questions Mr.
Vosecek (among other Board members) raised that met with such 'acid'
from ole mr. prez.

It was for some of this kind of stuff that Mr. Vosecek was given 'grief'
(such as some of my past posts re: Ken's removal as Treasurer at
Danville in '92) that makes one wonder exactly *where* Mr. Rogers'
loyalties were.

Collusion? Well, Mr. Rogers' 'railroading' on handing the magazine over
to Kelly at LDRS 11 continues to make more and more sense. Earl Cagle
(Point 39 Prod) and I were on the phone just Friday night, talking about
his trip to FireBalls - but, we got back to this LDRS 'giveaway' (which
Earl was at - as was myself) and Earl relayed to me a telephone
conversation he had recently with Sonny Thompson and Earl (apparently)
having to *remind* Sonny that, indeed, he (Sonny) was NOT there when all
this 'went down' and that it WAS blackmail - of which I am equally of
the opinion. Earl even reminded *Kelly* (again) of this *fact* at the
recently conducted FireBalls launch.

As 'president', Rogers had the absolute reponsibility to the
Association.

It appears (in many more examples than just this), that Mr. Rogers was
having extreme difficulty understanding the very obvious, purely
fiduciary, and clearly moral obligation to the trust granted to him by
the *members* he was obligated to represent. He can 'argue' all he
wants about the 'leadership' he exhibited in getting the Association a
'better' magazine. Oh, it's 'prettier' - but the (maximum) 50% content
- almost totally DEVOID of *true* technical basis can give rise to
massive speculation as to just how much 'better' it is. If Tripoli MUST
engage in 'educational activities' to keep its IRS 501(c)(3) status and
is assuming THIS magazine is the mechanism of accomplishing that ("Joe
flew this - Ralph crashed that"), then I hope IRS doesn't 'dig' a little
- because I'm not so sure they would end up with the feeling one would
classify as 'warm and fuzzy'.

No matter. I know of NO (for profit) magazine that ALREADY had its
'subscriber base' established BEFORE it ever printed its first issue -
which was EXACTLY the 'gift' given Mr. Kelly at LDRS 11. And then one
wonders why Kelly has made mention in the (recent) past that the
magazine was losing money and he might just 'give it back'? Does
anybody besides myself wonder at the hypocrisy of 'giving back'
something that was stolen?

<I know I'm doing a lot of 'wondering' here - which is Kelly's 'line' -
sorry <G>)

'Better'? - a matter of opinion. National Geographic would only cost me
HALF as much. The contrast of these two *educational, non-profit*
associations is striking - in many, many ways. To be sure, the NGS is
far bigger. But there was a day when NGS was the same size TRA is
today. I will, however, *absolutely guarantee you* that, if NGS was
'functioning' with the 'vision' and 'insight' and 'professionalism' and
'integrity' back then that we see in TRA today - it would have 'gone
under'. Corruption will never last... PERIOD. It matters not if some
stand up and 'say something' about the 'direction' or simply sits down
and keeps their mouth shut - the end result of BASE motives and behavior
will ALWAYS end up the same - in the trash heap. But back to the
subject at hand...

The stories and rumors just continue to circulate on this magazine
'issue' (pardon the pun <g>). Sadly, there is more 'truth' to a fair
amount of those rumors than there is falsehood. Earl and I both
witnessed this 'thing' (as did many other disgruntled Tripoli members)
and can attest to the fact that Tripoli simply got 'raped' on this one -
with the apparent 'blessing' of its own 'president'.

Rogers = Leadership? Paradoxes are NOT 'equalities' - in either the
mathematical sense NOR the 'real' sense.

Conclusion? Draw your own collusions. :-)

-- john.

p.s. I know Fred is busy - but I still haven't seen a letter with those
cancelled 'checks' re: RAS advertising. I *did*, however, get back that
Certified Letter I mailed to Rogers recently - returned due to being
UNCLAIMED. No matter, Chuck - I know you know what was in it - which is
all that matters to me, anyway. Just be aware that I *sincerely* hope
the reality discussed therein doesn't come to pass - for *your* (and
Bruce's) sake. We've got time to see, however.

Oh, Bill, I appreciate your reference to this same letter awhile back.
Cheapest 'Return Receipt' I ever got. Thanks.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 47:

The 'Electronic Connection' to The Tripoli Report:
-------------------------------------------------

We need to back up just a bit to cover this one point - TMT's
'electronic connection' to Bruce Lee at The Tripoli Report. I received
the following email in early February:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: BRUCE LEE, 73642,402
TO: John Cato, 73551,1730
DATE: 2/3/94 10:02 PM

Re: Hello

John, Just wanted to let you know I am now online with compuserv. Have
not figured out how everything works yet, but I am working on it. Heard
it was an interesting board meeting. ..........Bruce
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This would now give TMT a rapid and direct connection to our primary
means of communication to the membership. I wonder what Lee meant when
he said he heard the meeting was "interesting"? <g> A little more than
a week later, I received another email:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: BRUCE LEE, 73642,402
TO: John Cato, 73551,1730
DATE: 2/12/94 2:52 PM

Re: TMT Approved list

John, Just wanted to let you know that I received the latest TMT,
thanks. I was wondering if you could give me some additional
information about the status of the testing, the test stand and anything
else. I think the membership, at least the people I talk to, are
interested to know what is hapening. I received the New Orleans board
minutes and there was no update about the TMT current status. I would
like to include something in the Tripoli Report. If you provide me with
basic information I will write up a little blurb about it, or if you
want to write something I will include it. If you do not want me to say
anything, that is OK to. Also, I was wondering, personally, if we were
going to publish thrust curves at some time.

Thanks, ....................Bruce
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lee's reference to "the latest TMT" means the latest Approved Motor List
(AML). This email indicates member interest in keeping up with what we
were doing (understandable). The reference to the New Orleans meeting
minutes (approximately two weeks after the meeting) indicates that the
(final, approved?) version of the minutes has already been 'cleared' for
publication. However, in contradiction to my request from New Orleans,
I did not receive a copy of them at a time near their 'final clearance'
(remember, Kelly's 'condition' on receiving minutes there in New Orleans
were referring to PRE-APPROVED minutes. This email from Lee indicates
that, in the time span of barely over TWO WEEKS, the minutes are now
FINAL and READY for publication.) In fact (to jump ahead in the
chronology), I did not receive a copy of them until April - merely 7
days before the Tripoli Report arrived that contained the same minutes.
Regardless of who may believe it, my only *genuine* motivation re: my
request for the minutes from New Orleans was to verify my notes I took
as it concerns *motor testing* issues - NOT any 'bylaws issues'. It
seems obvious from this fact that, indeed, information was being
withheld from TMT. Further, as the record already shows, there was NO
real 'juicy information' in the minutes that would give me any
'ammunition' on the bylaws concerns I had, anyway - even IF I was
looking for such 'ammunition' (which I wasn't).

Note, also, Lee's last sentence - showing curiosity about thrust curves
and whether or not the Tripoli Report was going to publish them. One
can deduce from this that, at *this* time, Lee *was* interested in some
curves to publish (and would do so). Since I had just started putting
that 'dream format' curve together before New Orleans and was still
'polishing' on it a little - where time would permit - I had not sent
anything to him at this hour - but would forward my 'best shot' at it to
Lee a little later.

The next day (actually, within 12 hours - note the 'post times'), I
respond back to Lee:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: John H. Cato, Jr., 73551,1730

TO: BRUCE LEE, 73642,402
DATE: 2/13/94 1:13 AM

Re: Copy of: TMT Approved list

Bruce,

Got your message re: the AML - glad it got there OK. Please advise if
there are *any* problems with getting these things ready for paste-up -
I just got a new LaserJet 4P (600 dpi), so it is my *hope* that the
printout quality is acceptable.

As far as a 'status report', I'll try to put a few things together
tomorrow and get it out to you on Monday. As a short 'quickie' on it:
we FINALLY have the Tripoli Test Stand (got to the committee just last
Tuesday) - we're doing some work on getting capability for testing the
smaller, Class 1.4c (CLASS C) motors and some progress is being made on
the Large motor testing capability. Things have been kind of quiet as
far as actually burning motors is concerned (last test date was 30
October) - due mainly to not having the Tripoli stand - but that has
changed now. Expect things to 'start popping' again REAL SOON NOW. I
fully intend to have ANY motor in our possession burned BEFORE these
spring launches get started.

I noticed that your last 'Report' had the first CIS Update in it. Look
in LIB 8 for 'TMT Composite '93 Update' for ALL updates in calendar year
1993 and the 'TMT Composite '94 Update' for everything since New Year.
You should note that the " '94 Composite" list will ALWAYS have the
latest (and everything) that occurs during the current year.

You're always welcome to 'holler' if you have any questions -- John.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I *do* get that 'blurb' about the current status of TMT to Lee (which
shows up in an upcoming Tripoli Report).

We'll now come back forward to the present day (early March '94)...

---------------

A little 'mistake' on my architectural commission:
-------------------------------------------------

It was (and still is) my viewpoint that the confidentiality as to the
the identity of the parties involved with this 'rocket related concern'
and my commission with them was none of the TRA Board's business - then
or now - (as witnessed by the previous discussion on this topic). Had
one, little 'comment' not occurred, I would not do what I am fixing to
do - and that is identify one of the parties in this 'consortium'. The
only reason it is indicated to do so at this juncture is an upcoming
letter from Kelly (early April) brings this person up. Therefore, there
is no real alternative but to explain the situation somewhat here for
the reader.

Tim Eiszner - my good friend and (then) Prefect of Tripoli Atlanta was
this party - however, my main 'point of contact' was closer to the
actual 'operating officer' position in the concern. Tim's involvment
with it was more from the 'investor standpoint'. This is all the reader
needs to know.

Tim was made aware (through phone conversations and, I believe, a copy
of the letters from the Board (Kelly and Rosenfield)) as to the
questions being asked about the commission. Tim was concerned that I
was being put thru excessive 'grilling' about this and, in a phone
conversation with Bruce Kelly in early March, he admitted to Bruce that
I was doing some work for him (Tim). Later on that evening, Tim and I
conversed and he advised me of that disclosure to Kelly. I didn't feel
too good about this, as what I knew of Kelly at this point gave me a
'gut level' feeling that this 'opening' would only be exploited - and it
(again) was of no real use to the Board. The knowledge of *who* it is
STILL serves no valid purpose - and this is *especially so* in that one
Board member (Rosenfield) was a potential competitor. Just as Gary's
presence (as a commercial entity) on the Board indicated that I *HAD* to
let the Board know about the commission, THAT VERY FACT also
*completely* excludes the TRA Board from having *ANY* right to knowing
WHO this 'new' competitor is. I think folks (TRA members) should
consider this as an *additional* point in the arguments that all have
heard as to the problems of having *commercial* entities on the Board of
Directors of a NON-profit corporation. The implications of the most
convoluted conflicts of interest just make it one, BIG 'mess'. Think
about this.

I respected and appreciated Tim's *desire* to lessen any 'negative
garbage' being heaped on me about this issue. However, I was prepared
to stand firm, being as open as I possibly could with the TRA Board,
but, again, telling them what they needed to know and NOT ONE MICRON
MORE. After Tim's and my conversation this day, later still that
evening, I drafted up the following email:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: John H. Cato, Jr., 73551,1730

TO: Tim Eiszner-Dante, 75740,1037
DATE: 3/9/94 11:01 PM

Re: Copy of: Bruce Kelly telephone call

Tim,

I've been doing some thinking about our call tonight - and particularly
about your advising Bruce that I am doing some work for you. I am still
of the opinion that this work was none of the Board's business and
appreciate your feelings to 'shield' me from some of the grief that this
Board is trying to 'lay on me' because they are not privy to all the
latest gossip.

I've been watching this organization for several years now and have
pretty well 'sized' things up - as far as who can be trusted and who
shouldn't be. I have a little bad feeling that, with the Board now
aware of who it may be that I am involved with, things will only get
worse. I hope I am wrong, but don't feel too confident of that. You
are not completely aware of all the 'crap' I have been going through
with the Board's meddling since I was installed as TMT chairman - there
is so much politics, it's beyond being sickening. When they were in hot
water at LDRS last year - NOBODY wanted to take this committee - and
they knew something. I have tried to really make motor testing a
professional operation and it is very obvious to me now as to why
Tripoli was having problems 'gaining credibility' with practically
everyone in the outside world, because they *really* DON'T have it with
some of the people that really matter. And this reputation is well
deserved. To be perfectly frank - Tripoli is a sick organization.
These bylaw and Articles of Incorporation issues are merely the tip of
the iceberg. Symptoms, not the sickness, if you will.

Let's hope I am wrong with my assessment. But, as I said, I really feel
we may see some concerted efforts to further discredit me, both inside
the Board and to the membership in general. I ask that you volunteer no
more information to the Board, nor will I. I very well may, however,
throw a further monkey wrench into the works by asking Dennis (as I am
*sure* he will be the first to call me with his new found knowledge) why
is it, then, that I am seeking an Architectural license in another
state. I prefer that we both 'keep them guessing', as the very fact of
your call to Bruce tonight revealing that he may seek my resignation of
TMT chair is proof positive that he is trying to exploit any weakness he
may see in my running of this committee - and the total reason is that
he has already decided the issue and simply seeks justification. The
stories I have heard and the first hand knowledge that I have have
convinced me of one very important fact - Bruce Kelly CANNOT be
trusted. Remember, it was Bruce that took it upon himself to 'blab'
confidential information outside of motor testing - creating quite a few
problems for me as chairman. He has very few friends of those truly 'in
the know' in the world of rockets - and has made numerous enemies of
others.

If I *do* decide to 'leak' the info of my license in another state, I
ask that you neither substantiate nor refute it. Just say that you know
nothing of it.

Let's see what happens -- John.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The reader will note that Tim relayed to me from his conversation with
Kelly that Bruce advised him of his thoughts of seeking my resignation
from TMT. Obviously (and from his letter of 2/22/94 - i.e. 'leading'
the rest of the Board with, "I was tempted to call for your resignation
from the TMT Committee. Someone else may beat me to it."), Kelly has
already decided what he wants - my 'head'. This fact, coupled with the
conversation with Mike Platt right after New Orleans (where Mike told me
that Kelly thought I was 'power hungry'), clearly indicates this
viewpoint, in my view. All this is what was 'feeding' my ominous
feeling about this. I had seen (as the reader has to some degree) and
had heard from others as to how Kelly will (literally) exploit
*anything* to seek his aims. Politics extrodinaire. OK (I guess?), if
that is what he wants - but not if one (as Kelly was - a Director) is
charged to look out for the interests of others. Kelly, being what he
was, had a fiduciary responsibility to nurture something that was doing
pretty well - the 'new' TMT Committee. To let personal feelings govern
his actions is PRECISELY what a leader should NOT do - and completely
violates his (unspoken and assumed) pledge to represent the BEST
interests of the Corporation.

TMT was (and had been) 'fixed'. Kelly, nor ANYone on the Board had ANY
valid reason to interfere, impede, nor attempt to destroy that effort -
both by myself and the committee below me. My architectural commission
had NOTHING to do with 'rockets' in ANY practical sense - therefore
there were no valid reasons for the Board to have concerns about
whatever 'conflicts' I may face in the future in administering the
committee. The VERY FACT of my letter of disclosure of this should (in
my mind) indicate honesty and impartiality towards any future decisions
I would make as TMT chairman. Further, why not just 'try it and see'??
It is *REQUIRED*, both by IRS and NFPA 1127, for the (positive) results
of testing to be OPEN to the public - Tripoli member or not. One could
easily make the decision as to any 'favoritism' I would possibly show to
a former client (as it would be in this case) by simply reviewing the
data I used to make approval decisions for motors on the AML. If it
appeared that, indeed, I could NOT implement the duties of my office as
TMT chairman with impartiality, simply seek another chairman at THAT
point in time, and correct whatever errors I (may) have committed. I
felt confident that would not have been necessary, as I was going to run
this thing 'by the numbers', as spelled out in NFPA 1127 to the best of
my ability.

If Kelly wanted to play politics and 'nail me' as TMT Chairman, he could
not (ethically) do so and remain on the TRA Board. Of course (and
sadly), ethics very seldom enters into 'politics' - especially in
Tripoli's case. My viewpoint (then and now) was that I was willing to
let the record of TMT stand on its own - to all comers. If anybody
wanted to try to undermine and compromise that effort, they were
perfectly willing to try, in my view - for I was confident that I (and
TMT) could prevail in such an 'attack'. But, again, for a *Director* to
attempt to do so - *especially* within the context of the good record
TMT was continually building at this time, simply *reeks* of the most
UNprofessional and UNethical behavior. A sad testament to the character
of a leader to attempt such.

Back to our story...

Tim got back to me (email) and stated that he understood my desire and
request to remain 'mum'. He further stated that any attempt to 'play
politics' and further damage TMT would be met with a 'nuclear barrage'
<g>.

I responded back with the following:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM: John H. Cato, Jr., 73551,1730

TO: DANTE, 75740,1037
DATE: 3/11/94 1:12 AM

Re: Copy of: Bruce Kelly telephone call

Thanks for your support and vote of confidence, Tim.

I had a call from Ken Vosecek (in Chicago) tonight and a few more
interesting tidbits:

Ken talked with Dennis Lamothe the other nite (mainly about Ken's resume
for President), and they talked about this 'Catogate' (or is it
Kellygate) matter. Dennis took it upon himself to 'warn' Ken that he
should distance himself from me, in that he has a lot more to lose (his
presidential campaign) than I did - further, that the Board was 'united'
in their stand against my position (Ken said that Dennis was 'chuckling'
throughout this part of the conversation - (what ARROGANCE!!!)). This
was interesting to me, as it is now becoming obvious (if Dennis can be
trusted - which is not real good odds) that the Board is trying to find
an easy way out and that they *still* feel justified in their actions.
If the tide turns against them (which I feel it already has), then there
is now justification behind the viewpoint to remove the entire Board.
(Again, this is all on the assumption that Dennis' statements about
their being 'united' is true - Dennis is beyond any doubt the classic
case of 'rationalizing into reality' - I would not be surprised to hear
him declare that 'night' is really 'day' if it suited him). I have had
no other communications with the Board, so I don't *know* that they are
truly 'united' (and have a somewhat hard time believing it but, if it is
true.....)

Ken was wanting to put some additional items of import to the members in
the Tripoli Report, but Dennis (His Most Royal Potentate) has declared
that NO candidates can publish anything OTHER than their resumes in the
TR until after LDRS. And he further *forbid* Ken to even *talk* with
Bruce Lee (the editor of TR) until after the elections (further
arrogance). Do you see what I mean, Tim??? These guys are 'assuming'
they are the TOTAL RULERS of this organization. All these
'stipulations' that Lamothe has put in place have absolutely NO
justification in the bylaws - Hell, it wasn't even voted on by the Board
- Dennis just 'decided' it on his own. (The only time he has been at a
motor test session, I had to call him down (and remind him that I was
the chairman) because he started 'making decisions' and 'announcing the
results' - which I have seen him work this way NUMEROUS times.) Dennis
would probably feel *very comfortable* in Nazi Germany - it fits his
style.

With all this, Tim, I can GUARANTEE you that when (or if) my 'Open
Letter' to the membership hits the stands, this Board will ABSOLUTELY
make every effort to not only have me removed from TMT chairmanship, but
will further try to remove me from Tripoli membership. You watch, I can
almost guarantee it.

Just a 'few more pieces of the puzzle' - enough for now. -- John.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No real further discussion in the above about the architectural
commission (and this pretty much 'blows over' - but there are one or two
more points on it that we'll get to).

However, the biggest thing covered in this email (above) are on two
fronts:

ITEM 1):

The fact that Vosecek wanted to put some additional 'info' in the
Tripoli Report concerning the election. This was NOT some 'amendment'
to his resume (as will surface again later in writings from Kelly),
rather, it was simply another 'letter to the Editor' type of submittal.
We can debate about whether a candidate should do such - however, I
don't remember anything in any *normal* election conducted in this
country that puts limits on how much information a Presidential or
Senator candidate can publish - it's pretty much limited by his budget.
Of course, in a (volunteer) non-profit corporation - utilizing that
corporation's own 'offical organ', it may be more fair to 'level the
playing field' a little - since we are not talking public office here -
nor a 'salaried position' - and I can understand that. Regardless,
there IS *no* bylaw provision nor 'policy' nor 'standing rule' limiting
a candidate's submittal of additional information thought to be of
import to the electorate. This *should* be codified in any future
bylaws of Tripoli, in my view.

More to the point on this issue is the fact that, indeed, there is ONE
person making the decision here (Lamothe) - without any *true* policy to
back up his authority to do so. Further still, this level of
involvement by Lamothe is very clear indication of him being *truly*
involved with the election process - a DIRECT violation of Tripoli's
bylaws wherein it is stated that "No Director nor candidate" shall be
involved. (Lamothe was BOTH this year - incumbent running for
re-election *and* Presidential candidate) This year, Lamothe was SO
involved that he was CHAIRMAN of the election committee - as he was the
PREVIOUS year also (go check out that FULL PAGE ad in the TR in early
'94 requesting candidates to send their resumes to "Dennis Lamothe -
Chairman - '94 Tripoli Elections Committee"). An 'election' conducted
in violation of the bylaws is (truly) nullified thereby. We'll get to
this more later.

ITEM 2):

Lamothe's statement to Vosecek that the "Board is united" in their
'stand' against me relative to the 'bylaws issue'. I was rapidly coming
to the conclusion (with my research and what I was finding out) that, at
the VERY LEAST, the Board (back in 1990) acted improperly by not
INFORMING the membership of their change in powers and rights (see my
'phantom' letter to Kelly of 2/26/94 - Part 44). From that (and the TRA
bylaw provision that Directors *can* be removed "with or without cause")
coupled with the fact that the issues from New Orleans were NOT
(apparently) going to be fully disclosed to the membership so they could
make an INFORMED decision - coupled with the statements above from
Lamothe that the (current) Board was "united" pretty much cemented in my
mind that there was sufficient justification to seriously entertain the
idea of the removal of the ENTIRE Board. I still feel that way today -
and things that will come to light shortly in my 'chronology' will
illustrate the soundness of that viewpoint more completely.

I also reveal my viewpoint that, "the tide has turned against them"
<g>. Obviously a little naive. I just was counting on the membership
to hold to a standard that (apparently) not very many were willing to
do. Ahh, such is life. <g>

---------------

Next in Part 48: The trip to North Carolina and a 'talk' with one of
Tripoli's Founders.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 48:

A few expansions from Part 47:
-----------------------------

Item 1:
Relative to the discussions of the minutes in Bruce Lee's emails and my
reference to him having them "barely two weeks" after the New Orleans
meetings, obviously this is more like THREE weeks (23 Jan to 12 Feb).
But, then, this is just when I found *out* about Lee's possession of the
minutes. Who knows when *Lee* actually received the minutes.

-----

Item 2:
Relative to my discussion as it concerns the 'conflict of interest'
issue within the bounds of my architectural commission and whatever
'favoritism' I (allegedly) would show to a former client, we need to
expand on this a little. I make mention about probably the best policy
would be to 'try it and see' - as to whether I would, indeed, 'show
favoritism' - and that the data would be open for all to see (and
thereby) confirm if I was not being impartial. There are two
possibilities here: 1) Approving a motor that should NOT be approved --
and -- 2) NOT approving a motor that SHOULD be approved. The 'conflict'
issue, obviously, concerns scenario #1. It is understood that if I were
to pass a motor that should NOT be approved, the manufacturer would
(probably) say nothing - it's to his benefit. However, as stated, at
the exact instant I would make a positive decision on the test results
of a particular motor and, thereby, its listing on the AML - this data
is now available to EVERYBODY to look at (by LAW - both from IRS and
NFPA). If I tried to 'sneak one by' (for my former client), then
*everybody* would have the data to look at and expose my 'sneaky
behavior'. This would be all but impossible to get away with.

As far as scenario #2, it was policy within TMT that the manufacturer
had EVERY right to inspect the 'firing file' of EVERY motor we tested
for him - approved or not. He KNEW which motors were submitted, so he
would know which firing files to ask for. If I were to (beligerently)
withhold approval of a motor test that I SHOULD approve, the
manufacturer would have the data at hand to back up his claim that I was
not being impartial, as regards his motors - and was perfectly welcome
to go to the Tripoli Board with his complaints (and you can BET he
would).

Seems pretty difficult (actually impossible) that I could 'get away'
with any favoritism towards a former client based on the above. This
was my viewpoint as it concerns this (supposed) 'conflict of interest'
and the Board's (unfounded) concerns about them. And it was this fact
(among other 'keys') that kind of 'raised my antenna' as to the *real*
issues of Kelly's acerbic letter of 2/22/94.

Actually, there could be a *third* abuse scenario - and this would be
'holding' a motor that is submitted and not testing it - therefore there
would be no 'firing file' to ask for. Admittedly, that is a possibility
(I'm sure Mr. Irvine may use a different word than 'possiblity') - but
this would also mean the ENTIRE committee would be aware of the
existence of this motor in our possession and would, thereby, be able to
ask me questions as to why we haven't tested said 'withheld' motor.
There is no logical basis for me, as chairman, to do such - and I would
only hope that the committee would simply go around me and to the Board
(or manufacturer) if they felt I was behaving thusly. In light of what
was becoming obvious about the TRA Board - and the situation of some of
these older motors (from the previous administration) not even coming to
the possession of the testing committee (which they didn't during my
year), any manufacturer suffering under such a 'third' abuse scenario
would, in reality, have very little recourse (within the organization) -
short of bringing his concerns before the NFPA - which would, indeed, be
a valid option.

(I'll gab a little more about this next time)

-----

Item 3:
Relative to Mr. Vosecek's resume and the 'directive' (now here's a
*real* one <g>) from Lamothe about no further 'submittals', the reader
must keep in mind that this was decidedly one-sided. Again, I am not
totally of the opinion that candidates should be given completely 'free
reign' in submittals in their campaign - (maybe they should) - but the
absolute bottom line on it is that any such policy should be EQUALLY
APPLIED to *ALL* candidates and COMMUNICATED to *ALL* candidates. Under
NO circumstances can it be argued that the case we had here in '94 as it
applies to Vosecek met those criteria. Ken was being singled out -
mostly because Lamothe knew Ken was wanting to put some more data as it
concerns his 'running mates' (Kelly/Rogers) - as Ken advised me, also.
Ken does not hold positive feelings about these individuals and his
resume pretty much 'shot himself in the foot', as he lashed out at
Kelly/Rogers - but his wording turned folks off. Who knows what any
additional submittals by Vosecek would have been worded like. I can
imagine, but do not really know.

But, again, one canNOT apply such a 'limiting' policy towards one
candidate and even BEGIN to assert such a process is fair. Nor can one
just 'decide' on this policy on a phone call in the middle of the
election and, again, assert impartiality. Sadly, this was exactly what
Lamothe was doing here. (For those who may feel differently, I
challenge you to show where said 'policy' is printed in the Tripoli
Report - PRIOR to the election. Nope, I didn't think you could. I rest
my 'case'.) Yet further improprieties as it concerns this particular
'election'.

---------------

A trip to North Carolina...

As the reader will remember, we tested the first Vulcan L-750 on the 19
Feb test session. And, this motor yielded the frangible link protecting
the test stand - thus, no data recorded. Ross Dunton (Magnum) was very
interested in seeing some data for this motor and wanted to get another
one to me to test. In our talks after 19 Feb, Ross and I agreed to meet
in North Carolina at Jim Scarpine's launch in March for me to pick up
the motor. This launch was the weekend of the 26-27 Mar. '94. Dwight
(my 'bylaws whiz' friend) decided to go with me as far as Raliegh, N.C.
to visit some friends - and, from there, I would buzz on over to Rocky
Mount and the launch. After not seeing anything in HPR mag as it
concerns those sample thrust curves sent to Kelly back in November '93,
it was about this time I figured I needed to take matters into my own
hands a little and distribute some of this data myself. The first
'dream format' curve I had put together was the AeroTech J-800 RMS motor
(which was the one I had in New Orleans in Jan). I gathered up some of
this data (as well as the latest TMT Short Form AML listing - same one
that Bruce Lee talks about in his email of Feb (see Part 47)) and Dwight
and I head off to NC.

One of the persons I find there at the launch is Chuck Mund - one of
Tripoli's Founders (see Articles of Incorporation). At this point in
time, this 'bylaws thing' has me pretty agitated and I am pretty much
relieved to find one of Tripoli's Founders to talk to - to get the
perspective of one who truly KNEW the intents of the ORIGINAL bylaws
and, particularly, Article XI (the amendment article). We have a good
day of flying Saturday and, as it turns out, Chuck and I are some of the
last to get thru the line at the steak house where everybody eats supper
that night. No 'big' tables left, so Chuck and I are seated at a 'two
person' table. The meal is filled with talk. As the reader should find
as no surprise <g> - it is *I* who am doing most of the talking - but
this, mainly, to fill Chuck in on what the 'situation' is with motor
testing, the 'Kellygate' affair, and the bylaws issues I discovered in
New Orleans. (No, I didn't go into the detail I have here up to this
point <g> - we actually DID get thru it during the meal). Chuck
informed me that, maybe as much as anything, during the formation of
Tripoli, they were looking at 'getting legal' and flying rockets. He
was not completely of the opinion that it was a *conscious* act to
purposely reserve the amendment rights to the members (but there are
other discussions with other Founders (to come) that show a more
conscious decision on this). Regardless, Mund is not of the opinion
that the Board should have this kind of power over the bylaws without
some 'checks' on their powers.

Arriving back at the motel Saturday night, this discussion is winding up
and I review with Mund what I found out (from Alaska) about how *easy*
it would be to correct the 'loose' wording in the Articles of
Incorporation to resolve the issue. As I have said previously, Mund is
a man of few words and doesn't, typically, show much emotion. In his
room, in the summarization of this whole issue, Mund makes the statement
- with a somewhat irritated frown on his face, "Why don't they just
*FIX* it?!?!" I agree. (My memory here seems to recall that Chuck made
this statement more than once - but I simply am not sure.) Regardless,
it appeared fairly clear to me that Chuck felt that this issue could be
resolved REAL simply (which was true) without any major 'firefight' or
convoluted maneuvering. "Why don't they just FIX it??" Indeed!

As far as some dissemination of TMT data to the flyers there, we are
able to 'strike a deal' with the motel were folks are staying for them
to run 100 copies of the AML and the J-800 'dream' curve to hand out
Sunday to folks. No charge! That was nice. Folks were REAL
appreciative and excited over the curve - there was not ONE negative
comment on them - nor, even, any comments on improvement of the format.
I advise folks that I, indeed, AM seeking suggestions and commentary on
the method and format of TMT data representation and for them to
'holler' at me with any comments they may have. Most every copy we have
made gets snatched up off the tail end of Ross's truck.

During this weekend, I meet Bob Sisk (TMT's recently appointed
chairman). Bob and I sit down in my car for a chat and I apprise him of
the situation developing with the 'bylaws issue'. Bob is somewhat
'taken aback' by it all and I can tell, at this hour, he wants to
discuss other things - so I don't push the issue (well, I finally decide
to not 'push it' <g>). (As stated, I am somewhat agitated at this stage
of the game with what I am finding out - mostly shock at the 'crumbling'
of that 'rosey tinted' view that even *I* held of Tripoli's leadership -
and this comes thru with discussions I have with folks - Sisk included.
Actually, I don't blame Bob for wanting to take a 'distant' approach to
this, considering my 'presentation' <g>).

Some rain threatens Sunday early afternoon and practically everyone
packs up and heads out. However, after everyone leaves, the weather
clears and looks better than it did the whole weekend. There are only
three of us left - Ross, Mund, and myself. Chuck pulls out some small
Class C stuff and we have a real, decent time burning off some of Mund's
Estes motors. I lot of fun. Later that evening, the three of us
finally part company and I tool on down the road back to Raliegh to pick
up Dwight - have a REAL decent time at Fat Daddy's hamburger joint (BIG
burgers) and spend the night there in Raliegh. Dwight's friend works
with the State and I ask is it possible to get a copy of North Carolinas
Non-Profit corporations act. Yep. Fine!! Monday we come back to
Athens (to Dwight's apartment there) and I spend that evening and the
next day at the Univ. of GA Law Library - researching writings and
statutes. I find a true gold mine of writings by *noted* authorities on
the proper structure of Non-Profit corporations and, down in the
basement, track down the Non-Profit statutes of several states
(actually, could have got those for EVERY state). I grab a 'selection'
from several random states - CA, CO, DE, and a few others.

Also find one interesting writing (by the founder of The Company
Corporation in Delaware) that clarifies the term "Membership
Corporation" (as noted in Tripoli's Articles of Incorporation) .vs.
"NON-Membership Corporation." This is good.

One thing I find (in probably the seminal work on Non-Profits by a
Howard L. Oleck - Professor of Law at Stetson Univ. College of Law)
*really* catches my eye. This 2000 some odd page book ("NonProfit
Corporations, Organizations, and Associations" 4th ed) really covers the
gamut of NP to the 'nth' degree. In the 'Points to Remember' summary at
the end of the chapter on bylaws there is some advice that anchors my
viewpoint on this *forever* - to not waiver or compromise for *anyone*:

"* The members should control the adoption and amendment
of the bylaws - always.

* Give amendment powers to the directors only in minor
matters, and with plenty of caution and safeguards."

(pg 412)

However, I find *several* other works on NP Corp. - all of exhaustive
detail - and *ALL* of them say the same thing... never give the bylaw
amendment right to the Directors.... NEVER.

That does it, in my mind. Under NO circumstances will I accept anything
less than the *correction* of this 'screw-up' that occurred in Tripoli
back in 1990. This all the more so in that the 'fix' is laughably
simple - PLUS the fact that the Alaska Statutes simply allowed this
'screw-up' by a 'lazy default'.

It seemed at this point hardly necessary to go thru all this - as just
plain COMMON SENSE would indicate such as the above. The membership are
the ones that PAY DUES and, by DEFAULT, should have the final say in
matters. One of the state's statutes (I'd have to dig a little to find
this) that I find there only had ONE Act for PROFITS *AND* NonPROFITS -
with some introductory language stating that, for NON-profits, simply
change the word "stockholder" in the statute to "member" - other than
that, there is NO other fundmental difference.

This research REALLY raises my 'antenna' on what is going on in
Tripoli. And my feelings for the Board in their holding firm to their
position at 'keeping' this amendment right grow considerably more
ominous. Fundamentally, it is about here that my faith in the current
Board just evaporates - and I trust NOTHING they say from here on out.

Arguments are put forth later (mostly in private and public writings by
Kelly <naturally>) that try to *divert* attention away from the current
Board (as doing something wrong) and more to the PAST Board (back in
1990 when this 'change' occurred). Well, we might could 'argue off' the
1990 Board's allowing such a MESS to happen thru ignorance - MIGHT, mind
you. However, since the current situation - raised in January in New
Orleans - is (and will be) CONSIDERABLY more open, fully discussed,
varying viewpoints aired, warnings put forth, etc.etc. (all this, at
least, by some minority of the membership who realize what is going down
- not so much by the Board itself) and the very fact that the CURRENT
Board is 1) Not saying much and 2) when they do, it is some 'claim' that
it is *important* for the Board to have this power (IOW, trying their
damnedest to HANG ON to the power), I became of the opinion that the
'evil deed' done here IN THE PRESENT is actually WORSE that what
happened back in 1990. There can be NO claim that the current TRA Board
was doing this 'due to ignorance'. They KNEW what they were talking
about. They KNEW what the concerns of several members (including
myself) were centered on. And they KNEW they were trying to 'grab'
something that was VERY powerful in the direction and very future of the
Corporation -- something that they had NO ethical or moral right to
have.

And that is very much *precisely* the viewpoint that I hold even today -
that the Tripoli Board of '93-'94 committed a MUCH more grievous act
than could EVER be laid on the 1990 Board. That viewpoint will never
change, either.

I should state here that, even with my viewpoint (above), what happened
in 1990 was WRONG - and it took NO 'legal research', 'legal council' nor
anything of the sort to see such wrong committed to the Tripoli
membership (remember the points raised in my 'phantom' letter to Kelly -
Part 44). It simply took the very basic concept of the 'right of self
determination' - something that *any* American can understand
implicitly. The Tripoli leadership could NOT in *any* sense expect
members to PAY them to dictate to them - and that is EXACTLY what they
were expecting. It matters NOT about the legality of this - nor of the
ETHICS of this. IT WAS IMMORAL!!

I should also state here that there were THREE members of the current
Board of Directors ('93-'94) that were Directors back in 1990...

Gary Rosenfield,

Charles E. Rogers and Bruce E. Kelly

---------------

Next in Part 49: The 'keystone' in the 'house of cards' is pulled.

-- john.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

The 'CATO Chronicles'

PART 49:

The second 'status report' to the Board:
---------------------------------------

The reader will remember that my first 'report' to the Tripoli Board was
also the first (technical) communication from TMT to the outside world
back on 17 Nov. '93 (Part 18). There was also the 'interim' report to
Rogers on 9 Feb '94 (Part 39) - but this only to Rogers. Also, as
stated previously, these 'quarterly' reports were NOT required by the
Tripoli bylaws - only the Annual Report was. I am simply noting these
facts for the reader to illustrate that I was of the opinion that it WAS
important to keep the Board informed of our activities. Further,
regardless of the other 'issue' of the bylaws that was beginning to
become the 'hot' topic, I was NOT going to let that interfere with the
duties I was charged with administering for TMT. The two were
completely separate things and my acts - as documented in the Permanent
Record - clearly illustrate this belief of mine.

At any rate, the following was this 'second' quarter report (mailed to
the ENTIRE Board the day before my trip to North Carolina (covered last
time in Part 48) so this is a little out of sequence)...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

24 March 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

Tripoli Board of Directors
(various locations)

Re: 2nd Quarter AML and Status Report

Gentlemen:

Enclosed please find your copy of the Second Quarter - 1994 Approved
Motor Listing (AML). I am putting this thing together a few days early,
as there will be no changes between the date of this status letter and
April 1. A 'camera ready' copy of this list is also being sent,
simultaneously, to Bruce Lee (The Tripoli Report), so his next 'layout'
should have the latest for the membership.

As far as a status report, the Tripoli Test Stand finally did get in the
hands of the committee the first week of February. With a few days for
refurbishment and checkout, we were back on track to do testing and
conducted a test session on February 19. That session resulted in the
addition of two (2) AeroTech motors to the AML (the J700 single use and
L952 98mm RMS(tm)). In addition, there is some new data for the Vulcan
L750 ss motor. The L750 test was unusual, in that the startup thrust
peaked out quite high (528 lbs) and, as a result, caused the 500 lb.
frangible link to yield - with the commensurate fact that no data were
recorded (a sad fact, but not so sad considering that we still have a
valid load cell). I have discussed this anomaly with Scott Dixon and he
generally wasn't of the opinion that this motor should have peaked out
quite this high. Regardless, the data acquisition seems to indicate
that, indeed, it did.

Due to the fact that we videotape each test, there was sufficient data
at hand to at least make a 'stab' at establishing some 'updated data'
for the L750. There has always been doubt in a lot of minds (mine,
Scott Dixon's, and many others) that the previous data for this motor
was not really valid (especially considering the fact that there were
recorded TWO different burn times for only ONE motor ???). At any rate,
with video of the burn, pre and post-burn weights, and the historical
Isp of Smoky Sam propellant of 163, we were able to 'put together' some
more believable numbers. See NOTE 12 for details.

There was no test session on the scheduled March 19 date due to the fact
that we had only a few 'odd-ball' motors on hand and the sickness of one
of the team (Dan Wilson), so we decided to 'wave off'. Inasmuch as the
spring launches are 'gearing up' we have established April 9th as the
date to try to get as many new motors 'on the list' as possible AHEAD of
most upcoming launches. We have quite a few 'singles' of some of the
more popular AeroTech motors that precludes testing until we get the
correct quantities. I have been in discussion with AeroTech about this
and they assure me that they will be able to meet our April 9 test time
frame. I expect to see quite a few changes to the AML after that date
(watch CompuServe for an update around the 10th or 12th).

That about covers it for now.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr.

Encl.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Bord294.doc - 3/24/94

There is not much need to elaborate here on the points brought up in
this report - they're pretty self-explanatory. Note that our planned
March test session was cancelled for the reasons noted. The issue of
'Note 12' as it concerns the L-750 test is Note 12 on the Approved Motor
List (the April Tripoli Report (v5n2) will show this). Note, also, that
the 'new' policy of Quarterly AMLs and expiration dates are functioning
(actually, a little ahead of schedule).

-----

A decision:
----------

The reader will remember the situation of Lamothe and his motors - and,
most specifically, the receipt of his 'letter of intent' on the 28th of
February - ONE day before the 'cutoff date' for receipt of personally
manufactured motors (see Part 43). Well, a decision had to be made on
this issue. I mentioned that Lamothe, in his letter of 28 Feb, made
reference to a 'K', 'L', 'M', & 'N' motor. I had seen the grains of the
'K' the previous fall and was aware that Dennis had shown up at a TTRA
(Tripoli Tampa) launch in that same time frame with the casing for his
'N' motor to show folks (including some of the team). Larry Smith
(Prefect - Tripoli SC) even sent me an email about that time and brought
this up. Larry and I had talked a time or two on it, also. So I was
completely aware and no doubt existed in my mind about these two motors.

This awareness, however, did NOT include the 'L' and 'M' motors - as I
quite literally was puzzled and curious when Dennis' letter arrived on
the 28th of Feb <"L and M??? First I ever heard of this."> And it
was. It was THOSE motors that was before me here in the present hour
(end of March). Dennis and I had talked on the phone a couple of times
after the New Orleans meeting in Jan - and he had brought this issue up
about his motors, but had NOT mentioned the 'L' and 'M' at all in any
conversation prior to that 'letter of intent' on 28 Feb - the latest
such phone discussion occurring on the 18 Mar - with the following entry
in the TMT Phone Log:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
3-18-94 Friday
-----------------------------------

8:55pm Dennis Lamothe 6 min.

advised that test off - set for 4/9 - asked pointed question
about his motors being tested - said we would do what we could.

---------------

The reference about the test being 'off' is the 19 March test session
(see Board report above). I was (basically) putting Dennis off with my
statement about 'doing what we could' - and this was because I was still
'smoking' on this thing and was NOT going to commit to anything at this
point - not until I had reached my decision.

(psychological observation break:

Lamothe is a master at trying to 'feed' his selfishness - and his
(almost) single-minded desire to get his motors tested by TMT puts folks
in a very 'hard' situation. I had seen and come to the conclusion many,
many months ago that the only way to successfully DEAL with this
personality is with total and complete 'black and white' thinking and
action. You CANnot give Dennis even 99.9% 'black' or 'white' - it
(truthfully) is ALL or NOTHING.... PERIOD. If you have one little
'hole' in any representations in a discussion, Dennis will find it and
try to sneak thru it. If, in a phone conversation, you give the
slightest indication of a 'positive' decision, you might as well etch it
in depleted uranium - for you will NEVER be able to back out of it <g>
Lamothe will carry you to your grave reminding you that you once said
something and then changed your mind. Thus, unless and until you are
REALLY ready to *commit* to something, you don't 'commit' at ALL. )

Such was the case with the conversation above. I was going to put
Dennis off until I had reached what I felt was the best decision and
(most DEFINITELY) was NOT going to convey that decision over the phone -
it WAS going to be in writing and it WAS (to the best of my ability)
going to be this 100% black or white.

Well, coming to the end of the month of March, I knew the decision had
to be made soon. I had 'smoked' on it for nearly a month and discussed
this a little with the team, as to their knowledge of these motors and
finally decided that the only real proper and fair decision was to
decline acceptance of the 'middle motors' (L and M) - because I could
not feel that, indeed, those motors DID exist in any reasonably 'ready
to fire' condition as of the 1 March cutoff date. I (and the reader)
will find out in a few days that my 'psych obs' (above) was something I
didn't know completely at the time. I'm sure this last sentence is
making some frown "What in the hell is Cato SAYING here????" <g> Let me
give you a parable: If you've never seen a mountain, a hill looks BIG.
It's only when you finally see the 'mountain' that you now have a
perspective on just what a 'hill' really is.

The 'mountain' that I thought I had an understanding of - specifically
as it concerns my 'little' discussions with the team about these motors
turns into a 'hill' about a week from now (or so it seems). This will
all make a LOT more sense to the reader after the next few parts are
read (which will only cover a few days).

OK, decision made - I draft out a letter to Dennis on the last day of
the month, as follows...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TRIPOLI MOTOR TESTING COMMITTEE
JOHN H. CATO, JR. - Chairman
RFD #2, Box 58
Nicholls, Ga. 31554-9618
912 / 345 - 2302

31 March 1994

* * * ___________________________________________________ * * *

DENNIS LAMOTHE - V. P. / Treas.
Tripoli Rocketry Assoc., Inc.
6059 26th Ave., N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33710

Re: Motor Testing

Dennis,

I need to touch base with you on a few things relative to our upcoming
April 9 test session, particularly as it concerns those motors that you
have manufactured.

On your 'K' motor, it is my understanding that this motor is designed
for the AeroTech 1706 Ns, 54mm RMS casing. You have not stated that you
have the casing for this, but you should be aware that TMT may not have
casings available for your use for these tests. I have recently been in
touch with Thea at AeroTech and she has advised me that they will be
sending two (2) K1100 reloads for this upcoming test session. While it
is still DOT policy that these reloads be shipped 'in casing', and TMT
still does have the 1706 casings from last fall's test session - which
indicates that TMT will have a total of four (4) of these casings (if
the AeroTech shipment does arrive as planned), I want to reserve the two
casings we presently possess as a contingency in case the AeroTech
shipment is held up for whatever reason. (I, personally, have two K1100
reloads and intend to fire those if AeroTech's doesn't arrive). The
K1100 has been the reason for a lot of calls I have received here in
Nicholls and, with the spring launches gearing up, it is imperative that
TMT get this motor tested ASAP. Please understand that I have no
problem with using the two spare casings for your tests if, indeed, they
are spares. The latest information I have is that the AeroTech shipment
is scheduled to arrive in Orlando on Wednesday, 6 April. At that time,
we will know for sure if the extra two casings are available, but not
before that time. You should also be aware that your motors need to be
assembled in their 'ready to fire' configuration and in the possession
of the team for 'weighing in' and this needs to be done before Saturday
when we leave for the testing site. This is going to be a tight time
schedule, I am aware, but we won't know about the 'freedom' of the extra
casings until Wednesday, at the earliest. You should make contact with
Will to coordinate getting all these loose ends tied up as soon after
Wednesday as possible. I request that you, also, get the basic data
about these motors together (Total Impulse, Burn Time, Average Thrust,
and Peak Thrust) at your earliest convenience and communicate same to
the team.

Please understand that your 'N' motor is in excess of the site's and the
test stand's capability at the moment. I am, however, continuing to
work with Rick Kauffman (in Tennessee) as to the possibility of using
Arnold Engineering's facilities to test these bigger motors as an
interim step until such time as TMT can get large motor testing
capability. Whether or not this will be 'in work' by LDRS this summer
is still up in the air. As vice-president and Board member, I request
that you advise the rest of the Board as to what policy they may want to
establish, if TMT does NOT have large motor capability by the time of
LDRS - as there are other motors (and, therefore, flights) that are
affected by this lack of capability at this time (including the AeroTech
large 98mm reloads). I will keep you posted on the status of the
developing relationship with Arnold Engineering as it unfolds. I would
prefer that you bring this motor (with the propellant grains) to this
next test session for the team to inspect and look over. You are then
free to retain the motor until such time as we can test it. At that
time, TMT will want the motor in it's possession two weeks prior to
test.

As things concern your 'L' and 'M' motors, I have polled the team to
ascertain their prior knowledge of these motors. My reasons for this
action centers on the receipt, by me, of your letter on the 28th of
February. Until the receipt of that letter, I had no knowledge
whatsoever of the existence, nor your intent to submit, these motors.
My poll of the team revealed that they, too, had no prior knowledge of
these motors. Since the first knowledge by any of the team was merely
one day before the 'closing of the door', and there was no real
'transaction' of this hardware to TMT, I am going to have to decline
acceptance of these motors for testing by TMT. I am aware that this is
not going to be very popular with you, personally, and for that I
apologize. However, by 'bending the rules' in this case, I expose TMT
to criticisms from other 'personal manufacturers' that there is
favoritism being shown. We have to 'play by the rules' and TMT didn't
make these rules, nor set these dates. It was done by the Board and TMT
is merely 'implementing Board policy' in this case. Being a Board
member, you, of all people, were aware before any other person of the
'final date of closure' on personally manufactured motors. As far as
options at this juncture, you can fly these motors at the BALLS launch
at Black Rock. Alternately, you can seek 'Competent Authority' (CA)
classification by DOT and meet the other requirements imposed by the
Tripoli Board and we will, of course, be happy to accept and test these
motors. If you want to discuss this further, you are welcome to call.

Again, please coordinate with Will at your earliest convenience on the
submittal of the 'K' motor.

Sincerely,

(signed)

John H. Cato, Jr. - Chairman
Tripoli Motor Testing Committee

cc: Will Meyerriecks
Chuck Rogers

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FILE: Lamothe1.doc - 04/01/94

The points about the 'K' motors and their need of RMS hardware is not
exactly correct, as Dennis' design utilized a modified front closure
(that I was fixing to become aware of) - so most of that discussion is
really moot.

The 'size' of the 'N' and the note I make about it being in excess of
the site's capability comes from an emerging 'limit' on what the Tampa
site could handle and not create problems with the 'neighbors'. This
site was under the ownership of one of the team's parents - out in the
'boonies' (somewhat). Discussions during the past month or so indicated
that 5000 Ns was about as far as we could go. The 'neighbors' were the
surrounding landowners and whatever concerns larger motors than full L's
could or would cause these folks to feel. As noted, I was aware and in
dicussion with Rick Kauffman (in TN) about a commercial entity there
(Arnold Engineering) - but was also considering doing some of this
'larger' testing here in S. GA (we are REALLY in the 'boonies' <g> -
plus the local Sheriff is a personal friend and he was willing to let us
do this without any 'hassles')

Also, relative to the 'N' and the point I bring up about Dennis
'retaining possession' will be elaborated on shortly - as this is part
of the issue fixing to surface.

Does anybody want to take bets on how this letter 'went down'?? <g>

We will find out....

... Next in Part 50.

-- john.

---------------

P.S. - Part 50 will start a new thread (under the name "The CATO
Chronicles - Part 5x") as the 'linking' of messages in the header
portion is getting pretty long - and, from here on out, I will 'break
the thread' every ten posts (... 5x, 6x, etc for '50-59' , '60-69', etc)
- for as far as we go. -- jhc

[Jerry Irvine]

In article <3223E3...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:

> The 'CATO Chronicles'
> PART 48:

> "* The members should control the adoption and amendment

> of the bylaws - always.
>
> * Give amendment powers to the directors only in minor
> matters, and with plenty of caution and safeguards."

> Board (as doing something wrong) and more to the PAST Board (back in
> 1990 when this 'change' occurred). Well, we might could 'argue off' the
> 1990 Board's allowing such a MESS to happen thru ignorance - MIGHT, mind

> And that is very much *precisely* the viewpoint that I hold even today -

> that the Tripoli Board of '93-'94 committed a MUCH more grievous act
> than could EVER be laid on the 1990 Board. That viewpoint will never
> change, either.

>

> I should also state here that there were THREE members of the current
> Board of Directors ('93-'94) that were Directors back in 1990...
>
> Gary Rosenfield, Charles E. Rogers and Bruce E. Kelly

Hello. Anybody home? No wonder my certified motors never had their
curves published in whole, data files provided and all motors submitted
certified. There were three (3) competitors of mine on the board.

Gary - motor competitor
Charles - Powertech partner, who knowingly certified PT motors as Kosdon
Bruce - Tripoli Business Issue, editor competition, HPR/Tripolitan

Just Jerry

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> Hello. Anybody home? No wonder my certified motors never had their
> curves published in whole, data files provided and all motors submitted
> certified. There were three (3) competitors of mine on the board.

Jerry, I would consider bringing this fact up before the NFPA. I can
attest that they lifted hardly a FINGER to get those old motors to me -
and it was my policy and committment that when those older motors
arrived, we would DROP EVERYTHING and get ALL of them burned within 30
days of their arrival in Florida. Guess what... they never showed up.
Rogers knew of this, as I was 'harping' at him early on in my tenure
about getting moving and getting all this 'old stock' to us and his
'excuse' was, "I think I would just forget all the old stuff."

-- john.

[Jerry Irvine]

Now you have clear evidence of the motivation of Rogers/Kelly/Rosenfield
(mostly Rogers) for taking this stance. It prevented me from having over
2 dozen MORE certified motors and they would still in hindsight be active
right this moment. Perhaps I should petition TRA/ Alaska to FORCE
certification of motors submitted, tested or not. There is precidence for
TRA doing that too.

[John H. Cato, Jr.]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should petition TRA/ Alaska to FORCE certification of
> motors submitted, tested or not.

TRA *won't* do a damn thing - and you know it.

Alaska *can't* do a damn thing - as this has nothing to do with a NP
Corp.

The NFPA? Give the Pyro committee a call and just WATCH things start
'popping'.

-- john.