[Bob Kuczewski]

Good idea Joe.

By the way, I think this topic is working exactly as it should. When we include a "None of the above" option it lets us give consideration to alternatives that aren't in our list ... and that we haven't even thought of yet.

This is another topic that makes me optimistic about our future!!

Thanks to all of our Trial Board Members!!!!!!    

[wingspan33]

I liked my rewording of the first version that Bob found, but we should (as Joe suggests) look a bit more into the whole idea behind Whistle Blower protection clauses.

BTW - Bob's more basic version was fine. However, sometimes making things simple allows for unanticipated "loop holes" or a claim that someone didn't understand this or that about the rule.

Also, many organizations actually have a real lawyer write these things up. Such versions will probably use more legal sounding wording. Better to borrow one of those versions than to hope a layman's version will stand up to the test. Just a few things to think about.

PS - The incident in Las Vegas really distracted me from this issue - but I think that's understandable.

[Bob Kuczewski]

There are other things that we need to think about as well. When we say things like "we won't tolerate" some kind of behavior ... what exactly does that mean?

Part of my objection was that neither version really addressed what the consequences were. I agree with Scott, that we should continue to look at what other people do. But I also think that there's value in simplicity.

Anyone who wants to propose something is welcome, or we can let it rest on the back burner for a while. It's up to anyone who feels they want to introduce a motion.

[Bill Cummings]

Our whistle blower discussion was put on hold until we could look deeper into the subject.

Bob K’s., expulsion hearing is the closest thing to a whistle blower example that I have see within the USHPA in a long time.

Any language that we come up with should include either court, arbitrator or neutral party deciding an expulsion.

Since this whistle blower discussion was put on hold should we leave it on hold until the Mission Statement motion is finalized or can we be more productive while we wait for responses on one issue and rather than sit idle until all check in see if the other issue is ready to advance to its next phase?

To that end if it is permissible I would like to advance three motions.
  #1 WB  , Remain on hold.

  #2 WB  , Advance discussions.

  #3 WB  , None of the above.
Are there any other motions, discussions, or seconds?

[Bill Cummings]

Can’t sleep. Awake since 2 am.
I realized after posting my previous post that I had just purposed a vote just like SG did when he didn’t remove Bob ‘s name from the RD ballot.

To that end if it is permissible I would like to advance three motions.
  #1 WB   , Remain on hold.

  #2 WB   , Advance discussions.

  #3 WB   , None of the above.
Are there any other motions, discussions, or seconds?
_______________________________________________________________
Of the three votes (nominations) above one will advance and two will remain on hold.
Should I withdraw my motion? Inadvertently I set up the motion to favor not advancing discussions.
Scott --HELP can you reword this correctly?
I tripped on my premise and fell on my conclusion. (once again.)

[Bob Kuczewski]

To that end if it is permissible I would like to advance three motions.
  #1 WB  , Remain on hold.

  #2 WB  , Advance discussions.

  #3 WB  , None of the above.

Certainly permissible ... even encouraged!

I'll second your motion and vote for   #2 WB  .

My expulsion from USHPA is an example of what can happen without such a policy - retaliation.

[JoeF]

  #2 WB , Advance discussions  
Voting here for the said option.

[wingspan33]

As well -

  #2 WB , Advance discussions  

[Bill Cummings]

As well -

  #2 WB , Advance discussions  

  #2 WB , Advance discussions  

[Bob Kuczewski]

It looks like "Advance discussions" wins ... as it should.   

One way to think of this is to ask what kind of regulation would keep the US Hawks from doing what USHPA did to me. In that case, I had been reporting known problems at the Torrey Pines Gliderport for many years. I had reported the problems to USHPA. I had reported the problems to the landowner. And eventually, after someone was injured, I reported the problems in a court of law. It's clear from USHPA's expulsion letters that they expelled me exactly because they didn't like me reporting what I was reporting - particularly in a court of law.

So what kind of wording of a whistle blower protection SOP would have kept USHPA from doing that?

On the flip side, we have to make sure that any whistle-blower protection policy doesn't give pilots a "pass" for things that aren't whistle blowing. For example, if I had been performing extremely dangerous flying (in addition to reporting problems at Torrey), then our policy shouldn't keep me from being expelled for my flying.

Maybe what we're looking for is a list of things that are explicitly NOT grounds for punishment. In other words:

The US Hawks Board is not allowed to use any of the following as grounds for punishment:

  1. The fact that a member has reported concerns to the US Hawks.
  2. The fact that a member has reported concerns to any governmental body.
  3. The fact that a member has reported concerns to any land owner.
  4. The fact that a member has reported concerns to a court of law.

By simply stating that these cannot be used in any proceeding would have eliminated almost all of USHPA's "charges" (retaliation) against me.

There may be down sides to this as well, so please feel free to play "devil's advocate" with this approach.