All things hang gliding. This is the main forum. New users, introduce yourself.

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By dbotos
#406750
I received the email about the re-vote and had seen the other thread on here about it, but hadn't seen when it was going to take place. I went to the USHPA website today and clicked the link about it on the front page. It made me log in and took me to this page:

https://www.ushpa.org/member/governance-proposal-2018

Long story short, voting is open April 16, 2019 to May 16, 2019 5 pm MDT. You have to be a current member as of March 31, 2019 in order to vote. Click the link for more.
User avatar
By JR
#406833
I copied and pasted this post from Paul Voight regarding the upcoming re-vote. I agree with him on all points.

JR


the link to vote NO on USHPA Governance Proposal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=csuMgDh9s ... e=youtu.be

I voted No and will do so again. Huge thanks go out to the RD who stepped up and got the vote over turned due to the process being in major violation of our by laws governing such critical actions.

Below is my revised piece on my "vote no" opinion on the "New USHPA Governance Proposal", which is up for a "re-vote". (Starting April 16 YOU WILL GET AN E-BALLOT AGAIN!!!)
Please read my piece below....

Then Vote ;-) (either way....)

If you agree with me... please send to pilots & clubs in your address book. Otherwise, the proposal could pass again.....

Thanks for listening.... Paul

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

Hello USHPA voters! (Again) ;-)

Well...Here we are…. Having a “do-over" vote.

As I have indicated in the past regarding the “New Proposal”, I'm not a fan. I (my opinion) recommend that you members vote against this proposal. You do not want it to pass. Don’t just “not vote”…. VOTE no…. (if you agree with me…)

(Vote yes if you disagree with me!) J



This IS however, a 2nd chance to defeat this proposal, which would be better for the membership (IMO). 6000 members didn’t vote last time… let’s fix that!



My reservations are, if anything, more critical after the Spring Board Meeting. We learned only at the very end of the meeting that a “do-over” is needed. Throughout the balance of the meeting, we were operating as if the conversion (to the new BOD system) was to happen at the conclusion of the meeting, but the process seemed very confusing… with lots of questions no-one had answers for.

To get on with it….Here are some of my arguments why the “new proposal” is a sketchy gamble (IMO):



My MAIN objection... is that I don't think the old system is broken. I saw it evolve over time, and it has worked well for many, many years. Decisions (by the current board) are carefully vetted by many minds, and the policies that result are arguably well thought out. Proponents of the new proposal basically Hijacked the MAY magazine and stated (as if it were fact)… that the old system is broken, while describing the new proposal as a “save all” concept (as if that were fact). That was questionable behavior.



This new proposal… if passed… will not be a success out of the box (if at all). It will take many seasons to work out the quirks as they arise. We will be wasting lots of time implementing and refining this program.



JUST as important: Regional representation will be all but gone if this proposal passes. Regional representation is the best part of the current system we have!! The original proposal had NO regions…. But critics prevailed… so this Band Aid “five region idea” is supposed to be the answer. One region would have 3 states… two others 16 states each?? Another 4 states… and one with 10 states. 1750 pilots / “elected official” is the defense for this. Director elections will be Nationwide…. Not regional, so West coasters could affect who is representing Vermonters ;-)



The decline in our Sports is what has folks frustrated... and they think changing the BOD structure is going to fix the Sports. Not going to happen.

When the insurance crisis happened, yes... the mechanics of the "large" BOD were problematic in a time crunch situation... and also frustrated these same people.



A small group did all the RRRG insurance crisis work, (and I appreciate that!)… but the product (as we know) is fraught with issues that need a lot of fixing (IMO). I only mention this as an example of how more minds might have made a better product?



The decline in the Sports won't be fixed (more easily) (or at all) by a smaller BOD, (IMO)

Creating a small board... so it can function "effectively"... like the RRRG group did.... (Making BOD & Bylaws changes that allow this to be "proper" procedure) is not in the USHPA membership's best interest. Fast decisions do not = GOOD decisions!



A great analogy for this proposal is: “The ship is sinking fast… and this “restructuring the board idea” is just changing out the motor… rather than dealing with the huge hole in the side of the ship” (Losing instructors… not generating new members…. basically withering away to nothing…)



We have spent the last 24 months discussing this proposal already…. And now plan to spend more time on it.

THEN… if it passes…we will have to spend much more time & resources to address glitches in the roll out… (I predict) over the next 3-5 years or more. (while still addressing RRRG fires and a shrinking pilot and instructor base).



In 5 years… new board members will inherit this program, as the board changes personnel, and they will have one mess on their hands. (and very few instructors and pilot members left)



I don't think the membership will have enough Intel or enthusiasm to vote for people from all over the country for this "new board". I’m not convinced vote minimums will be met.



I believe self interest groups could get a person (or more) on to this new board with enough lobbying amongst the conspirators. (funny… But not so funny)



I don't believe “outside of the board structure” committee work will happen as they hope it will... Why would it? ;-)



A LARGE part of this proposal (besides “shrinking” the board) involves attempting to get “diversity” on the board. Persons who WIN elections (the people you may want in there)… WILL BE BY-PASSED for persons of diverse age, wing type, gender and Region. There is also a possibility that a region(s) can be left with NO regional directors for terms… if no “viable” persons from a region get enough votes nationally.

My biggest beef with this is concept is the missing diversity component. INSTRUCTORS! There needs to be a person(s) of instructor background who will look at problems from the perspective of making instruction more attractive and affordable to current and future instructors.



I would hate to see this proposal pass… and then… become a failed experiment afterwards. THEN WHAT ??

I can’t promise the large (current) board can fix the Sports declining numbers... but they can produce as good (and probably better/more well vetted)... policies than a small board would... and can start doing it NOW without this distraction.



Just my 2 cents.... Please Vote



Paul Voight