[wingspan33]

Hello Everyone,

I stopped by to see what was up and to relay something that truly amazes me.

I've recently been doing some research on the USHPA's Corporate Bylaws and various sections of their Standard Operating Procedures (aka, SOPs). In doing so, I was amazed by the fact that to "conduct business" at a meeting of the membership the USHPA only needs a quorum of 11 members present. (! ! ! !) I don't get this. The USHPA has a few thousand members in good standing and all they need to do business, as far as members in attendance, is 11 (elleven) people?

What strikes me about this information is that it has either, #1) Never been changed from when the USHGA had (maybe) 50 members, or #2) The USHPA is intent on doing business without any real agreement and/or consensus of any sizable number of its members. Unfortunately, my impression is that the later possibility is the one in effective operation.

What I'm wondering is, how many USHPA members realize that as few as 11 people control how this sport's organization is operated and managed? And this leads me to consider the whole idea of the USHPA as an organization who's purpose is to serve its members. I suppose that it really does need to serve at least 11 of its members. But I'd guess that the general impression is probably that its "service" is supposed to be toward the positive regard of a majority of its members.

My question in connection with this bit of discovered information is: What kind of organization is the USHPA, really? How can an organization that requires only 11 members to conduct business make ANY (honest) claim to serve the majority of its (in the multi-thousands) membership?

I'm wondering if anyone else is surprised by this fact? If so, how might it give better definition to the USHPA?



[Please Note: So folks know, I quit the USHPA about a year ago because I was receiving absolutely no (organization based) support from my Regional Director. Both before and since then that pattern has repeated itself (effectively) all the way to the top of the organization. I've repeatedly wondered why the USHPA would care so little about losing a Master rated pilot who first began flying over 38 years ago. This is not an inflated ego issue on my part. It's a simple matter of valuing the knowledge that I or ANY long term pilot has and can share with his fellow pilots and flying community. In considering it objectively, that is certainly the kind of member you definitely want to support and try your best to KEEP in the sport. Unless the idea is not to actually support and maintain your membership . . . ]

[Bill Cummings]

Wingspan33,
This is not because I am attacking motors in our sport or the vote to insure powered harnesses. It is not an attack on whether or not paragliding and hang gliding should combine for insurance purposes.
It is an attack on the people in control that changed our Articles of Incorporation with a popular vote and not a 2/3 vote to be underhanded and overbearing.

[wingspan33]

Bill,

By "Articles of Incorporation" do you mean the same thing as the Corporate Bylaws? If they are different I'd love to see a copy of them.

Also, being a non member of USHPA for just over a year now, I don't know about them insuring powered harness HG pilots - or your other references. However, in the many years I was a member the USHGA and then USHPA, the org has never (to my knowledge) held voting activities (except for Regional Director positions) that actually meant anything.

In the Corporate Bylaws there is nothing mentioned about critical organization votes requiring any % of positive member ballets. From what I've read in the Bylaws, proposals presented to the membership for vote (again, except Regional Directors positions) are for show only. There is no legal requirement that USHPA present any issue to the general membership for vote, en masse. Large scale member votes simply are not required or, in any way, defined. That is, in regard to what a popular vote may be, or what a 2/3rds vote may be.

Such as: Is a "popular vote" a vote where the majority of USHPA members vote "yes" to some issue, or is it where the majority of members who submit a "yes" vote win? Same thing with the 2/3rds idea. Is the issue won when 2/3rds of the membership vote "yes", or is it when 2/3rds of the members who submit a "yes" vote win on the issue?

According the the USHPA's Bylaws all that is needed to decide an issue - at either a membership meeting or BOD meeting - is 11 people. I'd have to guess that at least 6 of those people must vote in favor of the issue at hand.

Finally, I'm wondering if, in the sentence below, you meant to say . . . "It is an attack on the people in control that changed our Articles of Incorporation with a popular vote and not a 2/3 vote. I consider that kind of action to be underhanded and overbearing." If this is not what you meant then I'm not sure what it is you think of as being underhanded and overbearing.

"It is an attack on the people in control that changed our Articles of Incorporation with a popular vote and not a 2/3 vote to be underhanded and overbearing."

BTW - Every "popular vote" the USHGA then USHPA has held (that I am familiar with) has only amounted to the majority of submitted votes. If, say, only 300 members submitted a vote, then only 151 people (3.02% of the membership) were all that was needed to decide the course of the USHPA on that issue.

[Bill Cummings]

Maybe I was dreaming but I thought I remembered voting on changing from USHGA to USHPA.
Didn’t that happen with either an online or paper vote?
What was the USHGA mission statement?
What is the USHPA mission statement?
EDIT: https://www.ushpa.aero/policy/bylaws.pdf

[Bill Cummings]

This morning I remembered that USHGA held an online “Tad-poll.” (my words.)
It was a vote that the members could do online as to what our combined sport of hang gliding and paragliding would be called.
A guy by the first name of Tad, (not Eareckson) from the USHGA office put it together. Taking input from the members as to our preference in renaming of our association and then holding an online vote.

True the vote didn’t actually mean anything.
But I think making that change alone went to the very core of what we as a hang gliding organization started out to accomplish.

Although it wasn’t the same thing as changing the United States Constitution (Which I don’t think would work with a popular vote in the House or Senate.) to me the name of our organization was jerked out from under the members far too easily.
Even the NAACP organization stayed with it’s “Colored People,” part of their name recognition even though the majority of its members now prefer not to be referred to as colored people.

In our United States Government which has changes in political party majorities from one election to the next the really important parts of our Bill of Rights cannot be tinkered with just because one party holds a few more seats. It would take far more votes to do any tinkering with our basic values.

As it stands now I see it as being far to easy for any interest group to run away with the USHPA.

[Bob Kuczewski]

This morning I remembered that USHGA held an online “Tad-poll.” (my words.)
It was a vote that the members could do online as to what our combined sport of hang gliding and paragliding would be called.
A guy by the first name of Tad, (not Eareckson) from the USHGA office put it together. Taking input from the members as to our preference in renaming of our association and then holding an online vote.

Good observations Bill!!!

The Tad you mentioned was "Tad Hurst" from right here in San Diego. He was a USHPA Regional Director during David Jebb's effort to control USHPA's policies at Torrey. Tad was part of the "in crowd" at Torrey Pines, and he was one of the SDHGPA members who stood up and publicly accused me of turning in the Jebbs for their violations at Torrey ... which I had NOT done. Tad's lie is still believed by many of the PG pilots at Torrey and it's one of the factors that has helped them polarize opposition to the Torrey Hawks.

True the vote didn’t actually mean anything.
But I think making that change alone went to the very core of what we as a hang gliding organization started out to accomplish.
  :
As it stands now I see it as being far to easy for any interest group to run away with the USHPA.

When USHPA incorporated the sport of paragliding, they should have at least created separate HG and PG committees within USHPA. The Hang Gliding Committee should have been tasked with ensuring that the incorporation of paragliding was not HARMING the sport of hang gliding. Such a committee, for example, would have worked to ensure that the Torrey Pines Soaring Council always contained fair (and dedicated) representation for the sport of hang gliding (there are currently NO active hang gliding pilots on the 7-member Soaring Council). But USHPA didn't provide any internal separation, and now it's just a numbers game. The April 2014 USHPA magazine shows 45 new hang gliding ratings and 138 new paragliding ratings. That happens month after month and year after year. We now have a PG President of USHPA and a PG Executive Director. I'm certainly not against paragliding, but with both sports combined in USHPA, there is no national entity looking out for hang gliding ... except the US Hawks.   

By the way, your analogy with the US Constitution is super!! There's a saying that pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner (bye, bye sheep!!). It is our US Constitution that grants individuals certain rights that cannot be voted away by a simple majority. USHPA has no such constitution, and there is no protection for the sport of hang gliding in that organization.