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

Moderators: sg, mods

There are good reasons to reduce the number of directors, listed here.
1) NATO 2003 restructured.
The new NATO Command Structure is perhaps the most important development in the Alliance's military organisation since NATO's creation

2) John McCain Streamline bills.
The Senate Armed Services Committee completed work on a 1,666-page defense authorization bill before departing for the Memorial Day recess that will occupy center stage on the Senate floor come June 6. The most important initiative in this year’s bill is a series of proposals for streamlining the nation’s military chain of command, which has become too big and top-heavy to respond quickly to threats crossing organizational boundaries.

3) Battlestar Galactica 1980 S01E10: The Return Of Starbuck
Conversation between Starbuck and Cylon after both crashed ships on a planet:
Starbuck: So, what happened during the landing?
Cy: The situation did not compute.
Starbuck: So you didn't know what to do. What happened next? (jokingly) Someone whip out the manual.
Cy: Yes. The Manual did not help.
Starbuck: (gives Cy an odd look) What'd you do when it came time for a little personal initiative?
Cy: We were taking a vote when the ground came up and hit us.

Ushpa must reduce from 29 to 7 directors.

User avatar
By red
srskypuppy wrote:
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:57 pm
A lot is being made over knowing how directors vote, and I agree, that does have merit when there is something critical or controversial being voted on. But voting on these kinds of topics happens so rarely that all this debate is hardly worth the energy. I also want to point out that when something IS critical or controversial we DO take a Roll Call Vote, which is recorded in the BOD meeting minutes.
99.9% of all BOD voting is simply to accept the recommendations of a committee . . . In truth, most votes are so benign and non-controversial that they are approved unanimously, so knowing which way someone voted is a no-brainer; they voted yes!

When did I give anybody in USHPA the right to decide what is or is not important ("critical") to me? I can answer that, NEVER, and please correct anybody there who thinks otherwise. If I can look at the real and true voting record for my RD, then I will know if I want that RD to continue speaking for me. Who best goes along with the flow is NOT the person that I want representing my Region.

Any flock of HG pilots is rather like herding cats. For any issue to pass by unanimous vote seems unlikely approaching impossible, unless some people are asleep, or worse.

It would also be very beneficial if anybody with a vested (as in, money) interest in any issue would recuse themselves from the vote, and refrain from lobbying others who will vote. This is a simple matter of integrity.
Given that almost every vote is unanimous, doing a Roll Call Vote on every single thing really is a waste of time. *But*, when votes are not unanimous there are usually just one or two abstaining or voting against, so it wouldn't be much trouble to record those names. Question to all: Would the recording of votes against or abstaining be an acceptable compromise?

This is NOT a negotiation!
("Lessee now, how little can we possibly tell the membership about what we do, to shut them up?")

NOT acceptable!

The paper ballots (or video recording of votes) would NOT slow anything down. Nobody here is going to believe otherwise.
. . . all this debate is hardly worth the energy.
In truth, most votes are so benign and non-controversial that they are approved unanimously, so knowing which way someone voted is a no-brainer; they voted yes!
Translation: Just shut up and send in your money. Sure, I get that, but such arrogance there is not helping. Transparency is very simple, and maybe pilots would not be leaving USHPA so fast, if they thought anybody there respected our intelligence.

There was recently a vote to have the BOD meeting in my region. After that (unanimous?) vote, oddly, the meeting went to Florida, apparently by the flick of a magic wand. Nobody could tell me if my RD even voted, or which way, or how the venue got changed AFTER the vote. This issue was important to me, but I guess nobody there thought so, and I may never know how that happened, or why. You cannot look at the minutes and answer me here, so your "no-brainer" term just makes everybody look dumb, including me. It's non-productive.

You really need to quit doing that.
// "99.9% of all BOD voting is simply to accept the recommendations of a committee . . . In truth, most votes are so benign and non-controversial that they are approved unanimously, so knowing which way someone voted is a no-brainer; they voted yes!"//

Let's suppose that 99.9% is true (it's not). This is just once again the old BS that says "Since you can figure out which way we voted most of the time, you don't need to know how we voted all the time".

Of course it's the VERY times that you can't figure out how your RD voted when the membership needs to know the most.

By MtMan
Close to the midnight deadline but hoping a current USHPA Director chimes in:

Will USHPA members be able to see how Directors vote during the Spring Board Meeting webcast?

What characteristics qualify a Board or Committee meeting as a "closed session"?
Closed sessions are typically used for discussions of stuff that needs to stay confidential. Examples of this are things like personnel issues (hiring, firing, compensation, etc.) and legal matters (status of lawsuits against USHPA or its members, proposed settlements, negotiations) or topics where we have signed a NDA (non-disclosure agreement) with some outside party. Most of what we discuss is in open session. On the monthly EC conference call, we have a short closed session to discuss topics like those above, but we limit what's in closed session to just those things that need to remain closely confidential.

User avatar
By red
Mark Forbes,

I can see no GOOD reason why compensation paid to any member, employee of USHPA, or outside concerns should be confidential, or a matter for a closed session.

I can see many very BAD reasons to make that happen behind closed doors, however, in paying out the money of the membership to certain individuals or outside concerns.

Please let me know where I may be mistaken.

Cool! Thanks for sharing those pictures and storie[…]

My Weekend Flys pt2

Day 2 of my last weekend. An inquisitive brown sna[…]

Since you guys resurrected this thread I guess I'l[…]

My Weekend Flys.

Thanks Chris, glad you enjoyed it, good luck and p[…]