u$hPa BOD Reform Vote

[SamKellner]

https://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=40

WOW What Ben Reese is predicting:

Make no mistake about this:

1. Voting yes on this issue will result in vast numbers of members leaving USHPA.

2. Some of these members will sue to stop this madness from destroying the principles of USHGA!! As Founded.

3. Some will start a new association, maybe reclaim USHGA or start a new one like HGGA.

4. US Hawks will by default gain more traction as will activists like Logan R.
They don't seem so bad right now. I hate to say that!
They are cheering you vote yes..

I suppose that if the Reform passes there WILL be "vast numbers of members leaving USHPA."
IF I was a member I would surely be voting   NO  
As a non member and US Hawks, are we cheering the members vote   yes   and the Reform passes ?????

[Logan]

Awwwww, Ben remembers me. I also think this is the first time we've agreed on much of anything.

[Bill Cummings]

I'm advocating they vote   NO   for the time when USHPA cleans house, invites Bob K. back with full benefits and no special limitations.

[Bob Kuczewski]

USHPA Director Tiki Mashy wrote in opposition to the change as posted on the Oz Forum

Her big argument was that the proposal would "concentrate more power in fewer hands". I would agree with her position, except that's what's already happening. The current Board has been a bunch of puppets controlled by Mark Forbes and Tim Herr. That was never clearer than when Tiki herself actually spoke up during my expulsion, and Mark Forbes backed her down. She spoke up, but didn't have the fortitude to stick to her position.

So Tiki, why should USHPA members be paying for so many board members when none of you has enough backbone to stand up to Forbes and Herr anyway?

Here's Tiki's full letter:

To My Fellow USHPA Members,

It is REALLY important that you vote. We are a small group so your vote will speak volumes.

I'll start by saying I am NOT in favor of the Governance Proposal and here is why (this may seem like a long read, but it is vitally important you understand what you are being asked to decide): This “Governance” issue came to the forefront just after our insurance crisis. That's why the insurance crisis example keeps coming up as a reason for a smaller board. They reason that the Board was not kept informed of the crisis because it was too large and would have taken too much time to bring the Board up to speed. So the work was done by a small group of people.

It is now reasoned that a smaller board is needed to deal with a future crisis. What future crisis? If anything, the crisis we are facing now started a long time ago with our declining membership. This is the critical issue that needs to be addressed – not how the Board should “govern” itself.

Straight to the point, this Governance Proposal wants to concentrate more power in fewer hands; making less representation for the membership. The USHPA is a member driven organization. You, as a member, give this Board its power. To put that leadership in fewer hands would be disastrous. Also, as a member driven organization it is most important that when members reach out for help, they have their local USHPA Director there to help with local issues, which gives them a direct line to their organization. Yes, we need change within the organization, but this Governance Proposal does nothing for the area of change that is needed. In some ways it actually restricts growth.

I'll get cut-off at the knees from some of my fellow Board members for saying this, but this Governance Proposal is the USHPA Board once again focusing on themselves, not the membership, not the instructors, not the schools, chapter or clubs, and certainly not the real critical issue facing hang gliding and paragliding – lack of growth. Seriously, USHPA needs to quit re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and address the gaping hole in the side of the ship. Our boat is sinking and as a member you and I should demand USHPA pay attention. This Governance Proposal is just another example of USHPA holding themselves above the membership. It is a distraction that needs to be quashed. The USHPA needs to get focused:

- Concentrate on growth and promotion. Realize that growth and promotion is happening at the local level and it is not effective to promote growth at a national level.

- Make things easy for chapters, schools, clubs, instructors and competition organizers.

- Engage and harness the talent in the membership, the clubs, and the chapters.

- Grow the membership by strengthening and validating the small instructors and supporting the schools

This Governance Proposal essentially changes nothing except to put the same power the Board is already wielding in far fewer hands and giving you, the member, far less of a voice. USHPA is a non-profit organization. This Governance Proposal seeks to manage it as a corporation – big mistake.

We don't need diversity programs like there are in large corporations. The Governance Proposal's diversity equation disenfranchises the membership at large and does nothing at all to address our critical issues. One reason, in a nutshell the diversity equation is highly unsuitable for our organization is; if a member gets the most national votes but does not fit into the “diversity equation” that member will not be selected to the Board. Imagine that…the person the membership deemed will do the best job is counted out because of the “diversity equation.” Conversely a member who may only get a small number of votes has a better chance of being elected if they have the needed diversity make up. Seriously, that's how it works.

Your smaller board will be made up of the members who checked all the “right “diversity boxes. There's even a provision if the equation doesn't work, than the other smaller board members get to pick someone – anyone. Wow – member driven organization? Not under this Proposal.

Hence, under this Governance Proposal this is where your leadership will come from, the power concentrated in these fewer men and women. That's a bit scary. This Governance Proposal isn't going to help get more members, we need to leave it and begin the real work. Again we need promotion from within and that comes from the local level, with just some basic support from USHPA in the form of insurance, rating programs, representation with the FAA, a magazine, etc. USHPA as a membership facilitator.

Let's face facts we're losing small instructors, schools, chapters, clubs and members – tell me how this “business as usual” Governance Proposal with its smaller board is going to change anything. It will in fact do the opposite. Members will get even more disgusted because they have less representation, the needs of the individuals/groups/clubs/chapters will not be met, schools and instructors will grow increasingly fed up with the lack of support and hang gliding and paragliding will continue to decline until it's on the bottom with its legs up.

Sometimes I am disgusted by the lack of foresight of this Board and their failure to stay focused on the real issues. We need to direct the current Board along with the members to focus their efforts on building membership by cultivating our schools and instructors, making things better for them, because that is where our real growth will come from. It is in those hands that the future of hang gliding and paragliding lay. Make it better for them and it will be better for the membership at large.

Passing this Governance Proposal with its diversity agenda, supersized regions and fewer member representation is a recipe for disaster. Wake up folks, your organization needs your help, our membership is shrinking and this Governance Proposal does nothing to address that critical issue.

There is so much talent and knowledge on the current Board that could be better managed, the committees especially need fixing. Membership involvement could be better managed. An unconscionable amount of time has been expended on this Governance Proposal issue (years that the membership has known nothing about) and for what? It's not gotten us any closer to solving what's really broken.

We don't need a smaller Board, we need to fix what we have, focus on surviving this downturn and growing the membership. A smaller board is not a recipe for growth. The Board spends far too much time pulling the train down a broken track, when we should be fixing the track – not buying a smaller train. One thing the Board did agree on is that nobody really likes this Governance Proposal, but because of all the work expended the vote passed to send it to the membership to decide.

So here we are. I hope we can finally put this to rest and get on with what is truly crippling this organization. I will be voting “NO” on this Governance Proposal and if you care about the longevity of our sport, you will stand with me on the side of growth, instructors, schools, chapters, clubs and organizers. Call, email me anytime if you would like to discuss this matter, I welcome all conversations for or against.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tiki Mashy, Regional Director Region 6, 11 and International

[Bill Cummings]

On the oz report I clicked on a link that took me to hg.org.

Re: The USHPA BOD reform vote
Mon, Jan 14 2019,  9:13:46 am
http://forum.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=406214#p406214

Logan was advancing a good point about asking for evidence of a law that would allow a concessionaire or club to exclude non-USHPA pilots from public lands.
None was offered up that fit the bill but only private land trespassing which was a different subject.
When Logan couldn’t be deflected they soon became frustrated that he also wouldn’t drink the Cool Aid they were serving.
Surprisingly and long before the discussion progressed into out right ad hominem attacks, Jack A., the moderator, decided to lock up the topic thread. He also noted that around 70% of those posting were not even USHPA members.
Remember this. Non-USHPA pilots discussing hang glidng and paragliding.
(And also remember that Jack A., censored some important dialogue.)

At the oz report on the BOD reform proposal:
https://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57809&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Other admittedly non-USHPA members were advocating a no vote concerning HG/PG.
It’s interesting that non-USHPA pilots are worried about the direction the national organization is going.
Ben Reese made a surprising revelation:

Ben Reese
Make no mistake about this:
1. Voting yes on this issue will result in vast numbers of members leaving USHPA.
2. Some of these members will sue to stop this madness from destroying the principles of USHGA!! As Founded.
3. Some will start a new association, maybe reclaim USHGA or start a new one like HGGA.
4. US Hawks will by default gain more traction as will activists like Logan R.
They don't seem so bad right now. I hate to say that!
They are cheering you vote yes..

No Ben. So far the Hawks individually are advocating a no vote.
If pilots do go looking outside of USHPA the US Hawks want the welcome mat to look good.
I suggest we keep the mud off of the mat.
If someone like Tiki M. should come to our door looking I recommend that our best welcome mat doesn’t look like the following:

Tiki herself actually spoke up during my expulsion, and Mark Forbes backed her down. She spoke up, but didn't have the fortitude to stick to her position. So Tiki, why should USHPA members be paying for so many board members when none of you has enough backbone to stand up to Forbes and Herr anyway?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Tiki made a mistake. She was on the right track, but she made a mistake when she allowed Mark Forbes to back her down. She allowed the peer pressure of the USHPA Board to sway her vote.

If Tiki is a big enough person to look back and recognize that mistake, then she would be an excellent and welcomed participant in helping chart a new course for the sport of hang gliding. But if she's not big enough to admit that, then she'll just be more of the same.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Logan was advancing a good point about asking for evidence of a law that would allow a concessionaire or club to exclude non-USHPA pilots from public lands.
None was offered up that fit the bill but only private land trespassing which was a different subject.
When Logan couldn’t be deflected they soon became frustrated that he also wouldn’t drink the Cool Aid they were serving.
Surprisingly and long before the discussion progressed into out right ad hominem attacks, Jack A., the moderator, decided to lock up the topic thread.

I agree with everything you've written ... except I'd have left out the word "Surprisingly".

I know that my criticism of hanggliding.org has not made me popular around here lately, but we need to wake up and recognize the role that Jack Axaopoulos has played in suppressing the truth on so many important issues.

For example, the U.S. Hawks started a hang gliding history time line back in June of 2012. Our time line welcomes all kinds of entries. I just read today that Jack Axaopoulos is going to start a time line on hanggliding.org. Aside from being 6 years too late, do you think it will be an unbiased history? It can't even list the acronym "USHGRS" without mangling it to "fakeilst.torreyhawksforum.org". Jack has already proven that he's perfectly willing to write a fake account of history - including actually changing what people have written.

In many ways, I think hanggliding.org is doing more to destroy the sport of hang gliding than even USHPA can do.

[SamKellner]

I'm advocating they vote   NO   for the time when USHPA cleans house, invites Bob K. back with full benefits and no special limitations.

What Bill Said ..

To me it really seems like the NOs are ahead. But how will the PG majority vote?

Bart W. wrote
I started a topic on paraglidingforum.com just to check the waters. Not much interest. And the reactions that are posted are in favor of the proposal. I hope I'm wrong.

And like Bill C., I'm hoping the Reform Vote fails and leads to a house cleaning. If this happens I think Jack will crumble with u$hPa.

Either way, it already shows that US Hawks is ahead of the curve, trying to save HG, largely due to the leadership of BobK.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I watched the propaganda video and the new system looks like a nightmare:

• Less representation
• More concentration of power
• Arbitrary weighting/diversity scores
• No way to ever get rid of Mark Forbes

Of course all of the current Directors (who got USHPA to this point) are screaming bloody murder because they're going to lose their little niches. It's hard to have sympathy for anyone in this fiasco.

But having said that, here's a simple litmus test to see who's sincere and who just wants to save their own bacon:

Director _____,
It's clear that this new governance proposal (and USHPA's recent loss of insurance) reflect an organization that's in deep trouble. The organization got itself in that deep trouble under the current governance and largely with the current Directors. If the current Board wants to stay in place, can each of you tell us what you would do in the future that differs from what you did in the past that got us here? Do YOU personally think YOU'VE voted for any of the things that brought us to this point of desperation? And if you can't tell us that, then why should we keep the status quo?

If anyone asks that question and doesn't get a lot of darned good answers, then you should vote to flush them all down the toilet so Mark Forbes and the "new" board can get the full and focussed blame for what's coming next.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I don't know who the RDs in my region are anymore, I don't care who they are, I don't even bother voting anymore. But the proposal in that video is the most cockamamie apparatus for coming up with a governing body that I've ever heard of, so I'll bother to vote no, if only for the sake of attempting to stop madness. I appreciate that the video was posted, the author is well intentioned, I'm sure, but trying to promote and preserve the snowflake way of life is no way to run an org. What you would end up with is a bunch of elected old farts debating which female PG pilots are old enough, but not too hideous, to fill the appointment positions. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.