.

.

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

Moderators: sg, mods

#175204
Davis' facebook page has a trickle of info from the meeting. It looks like they pulled Ray Leonard's instructor administrator rating and suspended the instructor ratings he gave out at his last ICP. Looks like they are serious about making some changes.
User avatar
By Paul H
#175218
If they don't let a RD serve who was elected by that regions membership, they will be starting a huge s*** storm.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#175223
Paul H wrote:If they don't let a RD serve who was elected by that regions membership, they will be starting a huge s*** storm.
I don't think that's what they did -- I'll bet they just made it so that he couldn't run rather than he couldn't serve if elected.

JB
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#175227
BubbleBoy wrote:
Paul H wrote:If they don't let a RD serve who was elected by that regions membership, they will be starting a huge s*** storm.
I don't think that's what they did -- I'll bet they just made it so that he couldn't run rather than he couldn't serve if elected.

JB
And from a now later entry from OZ, it appears that I would lose my bet above.

JB
User avatar
By sg
#175229
"Just to be clear about Bob K. The Bylaws Committee voted to not allow Bob K. to serve if he is re-elected by the current ballot if recalled"

Still dont know what this means, but I feel like burning my ushpa card already :shock:
User avatar
By Bobfly
#175230
Sounds like the USHPA is taking steps to insure Bobk's removal irregardless of the democratic process. :shock:
User avatar
By Dennis D
#175234
I was supposed to go to SLC with Bob so I could see first hand what takes place at USHPA board meetings so I could better understand how USHPA works, my mother collapsed the night before I was to leave and has been hospitalized all week.

I am fairly confused in how USHPA can keep a democratically elected board director from doing his job, but, it's probably best I didn't attend, I have a feeling I would be left dizzy and even more confused as I receive reports of what has transpired thus far. I would hope that they would provide morphine on demand for guys like me who would probably be tearing chucks of hair out of my head through such an ordeal, at the least, a damn good bar tender, while I don't really drink, I am willing to learn how.
User avatar
By jimrooney
#175250
"Just to be clear about Bob K. The Bylaws Committee voted to not allow Bob K. to serve if he is re-elected by the current ballot if recalled"
Hrm... may have to run this by an English teacher friend of mine. I don't believe that's a properly formed sentence. :crazy:
User avatar
By jimrooney
#175252
Here, I fixed it for you....
The Bylaws Committee voted that if Bob K is recalled, he will not be allowed to serve if he is then re-elected.

Hrm, ever feel like someone's got it in for you?
Basically, they're saying that they don't care what the members think, they're banning Bob either way.

Really?
Seriously... no matter where you fall on whatever issues you think might be at stake here... how does blatantly throwing out the democratic process help us?

So who exactly is on the Bylaws Committee?
Someone's got some splanin to do.

Jim
By noman3
#175257
diccktasters er um dictators um cough cough.FUK EM!.
By Derakon
#175258
As I read that, it basically means that if a recall vote is successful (i.e. the R3 voters feel that Bob shouldn't be their RD) then he will not be allowed to be re-elected again. Which I guess kind of makes sense? In that the recall serves as a vote of no confidence and people who fail that vote shouldn't be allowed to serve. Still seems screwy to me. If the R3 voters want someone to be their rep then that person should be their rep regardless of what's gone down in the past.
User avatar
By CHassan
#175260
wow nothing like changing the rules 1/2 way thru the game!

I just fired off a message to my 3 RDs, telling him that was a real bonehead move. I guess Dennis Pagen is in SLC, but I don't know about the other 2.
User avatar
By AIRTHUG
#175261
This hasn't passed in general session... Davis jumped the gun a bit posting as if it were officially official...

I spoke to many RD's that disagree with with either the policy in question, or the implementation of said policy during an already in-process recall.

I am confident this change to the SOP's will NOT pass general session... at least not without changes/stipulations...
User avatar
By CHassan
#175263
Thanks for the clarification Ryan.
User avatar
By BubbleBoy
#175270
Derakon wrote:As I read that, it basically means that if a recall vote is successful (i.e. the R3 voters feel that Bob shouldn't be their RD) then he will not be allowed to be re-elected again. Which I guess kind of makes sense? In that the recall serves as a vote of no confidence and people who fail that vote shouldn't be allowed to serve.
It makes exacty as much sense as a recall itself -- the voters of R3 wanted Bob as their RD and voted him in in the first place. By your logic, there should be no recall.

You either don't allow elections/recalls, or you go by their results. What you don't rationally do is allow an election/recall and then say that there are certain results that won't be abided by.

JB
User avatar
By Sky_Walker
#175273
Its a TRAVESTY that it passed anywhere, I seriously cannot believe the people in charge have a clue, its almost as bad as Washington.


:cuss:
User avatar
By SeeMarkFly
#175278
Sky_Walker wrote:its almost as bad as Washington.
A proper test would be to recall Brad Hall and see if he gets treated exactly the same.
User avatar
By ChattaroyMan
#175283
The latest I see on Facebook now is....
Oz Report From the Bylaws changes passed by the Bylaws Committee: A Director who has been removed by the members of his or her region cannot be nominated for election or serve as a Director for a minimum of two (2) years following the date of removal.
This makes more "sense" - in that it gives time for any "dust" to settle and "fences to be mended". (quotes mine)
User avatar
By Windlord
#175286
SeeMarkFly wrote:
Sky_Walker wrote:its almost as bad as Washington.
A proper test would be to recall Brad Hall and see if he gets treated exactly the same.
Hmmmmm! :crazy:
Knowing the Borg, there would be an emergency ruling created, stipulating
no more recalls within a certain time period.
They seem to have a solution for everything. :shock:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 18

Blue Oyster Cult - (Don't Fear) The Reaper From t[…]

Highest HG ramp in the alps

Pff, awesome scenery too!! :drool:

Umbrella factory - worked for Mary Poppins: ind[…]

goes 16 imagery

Wow... Thanks for passing that along!