[Bob Kuczewski]

I've heard this quote somewhere: "The best revenge is living well."

I am committed to making the US Hawks into the kind of forum and association that will make us glad that we don't have to deal with Davis Straub or Rich Hass.

Right now it is painful to be banned from those other major sites. But in the long run we will be rewarded with a new association of our own making. The task is similar to the one that faced the framers of the Constitution - find the right balance of freedoms that will foster human productivity and happiness.

That's our challenge here, and we can build what suits us regardless of what Davis and Jack do.

[Bob Kuczewski]

For the record, here's how I ended up getting banned from the Oz Forum.

In February of 2010, Bill Helliwell (backed by the Torrey concessionaire) was running to have me recalled as USHPA Region 3 Director. Bill would only post to the Oz Report Forum, so I went there to debate him on a few issues that I thought were important. One of them was open voting records for the USHPA Board. Bill had posted a series of platitudes about how the USHPA Board works without addressing the issue of open voting. So I responded by pointing out that Bill wasn't saying anything. Davis Straub removed my reply to Bill, and when I challenged Davis on it, he banned me. Here's my response to Bill Helliwell (including Bill's own quotes) that led to Davis Straub banning me:

 

Here are my thoughts on how a regional director should approach voting at a board meeting. After reading comments by Brad and Davis, I wonder if I am in fantasy land.

Decisions made at board meetings sometimes determine how USHPA's resources will be used. The resources include your dues money and peoples time. Other times the decisions may affect how things are done. Fundamentally the goal of any decision should be to promote our foot launched flying. Any decision should be decided by a vote of the regional directors, not by a committee or individual.

Agreed (this is Mom and apple pie). What about secret ballots? What about publishing voting records of Directors?

Some decisions are straightforward. Suppose there is a motion to give XYZ $100. Suppose this has been done every year in the past and the result has always been directly measurable and enhances our sport by at least $100, and no one has an alternative cheaper way to get that result. Then a regional director can make the decision, yes or no, on the spot, without any difficulty.

Agreed (this is Mom and apple pie). What about secret ballots? What about publishing voting records of Directors?

A vote on whether to continue with special observers or eliminate them requires a little more research and consideration. The fact that there are no special observers in a regional directors region is not a sufficient reason to vote to eliminate them. There are broader concerns. If special observers are important in some other region then that needs to be taken into account by all regional directors. It may be possible to get all the relevant information out at a board meeting and allow each director to make a decision that best meets the needs of USHPA and his own region. The benefits or lack thereof associated with having special observers are easy to see and can readily be discussed at a meeting. So a vote can probably take place. If some directors raise serious questions that can't be adequately addressed then the vote should be postponed.

Is there an actual position anywhere in this statement? If there is, can someone point it out for me?

When a proposal is going to change something, all directors have a responsibility to get answers to a few questions before voting.

What problem exists that needs to be fixed by this change? It must be a real problem, not a hypothetical problem. Show specifically what the problem is: names, dates, events. It must not be a personal issue, such as a friend of mine was ranked lower than someone I don't like in a meet and changing the scoring rules would switch the standings.

Does the proposed change address the specific problem. Too many times we see proposed solutions that would not have prevented the problem that occurred. (Would full body scans have disclosed the explosives carried by the underwear bomber?) The proposed change should be applied to the identified problem and it must be shown that the problem would be fixed.

Does the proposed change create other problems? This is more difficult to answer. Discussions with those who have experience with the problem can help disclose consequences of the change.

Again, is there an actual position in there anywhere in this statement?

At the next board meeting a change to competition may be proposed. In January a panel of experts (?) got together to discuss some issues and come up with recommendations for a solution. If all regional directors know the members of the panel and can be confident that all aspects of the issue were adequately discussed then the regional directors can hear the proposal, participate in the debate at the meeting and decide how to vote. However if a regional director doesn't know the panel members then that director should be able to review the proposal and talk it over with competition pilots he does know. The vote should be delayed to a later time. (Apparently the vote will be delayed until the fall meeting.)

That is how I see one of the responsibilities of a regional director and how he should approach voting.

I'm sorry Bill, but you haven't said anything about anything in these statements. You effectively say that if the Directors know what to do then they'll know what to do. These are nice platitudes, but how about some real answers? If you go to the Candidate Debate topics you'll find a whole bunch of actual questions that actual pilots are asking (including a few of my own). I think it would be helpful for you to let us know where you stand on some of those real issues rather than spending a lot of time saying nothing.

Thanks.
_________________
Bob Kuczewski: H4/P4 - Torrey Hawks, CSS, SHGA, E-Team, Soboba Soaring, Founding Member of the HGAA
Learn to fly hang gliders • Join the Torrey Hawks • Fly the Big O Loop!!
"Hang Gliding must be represented by an organization that cannot survive without it" - gs

During the entire election Bill Helliwell never answered my questions about open voting by the USHPA Board. But he answered afterward by his actions as Director ... and we still don't know how our own Directors vote on the USHPA Board.

Davis Straub banned me to give Bill Helliwell "cover" on the issue of open voting on the USHPA Board. It's as simple as that.

[wingspan33]

I have learned from a reliable source that, while Davis Straub has banned me from the Oz Report Forum, he has - at the same time - allowed Billy Floyd (aka BilleFly) to remain as a member of the forum.

So, someone committing a Hate Crime (under NYS Law) on the Oz Report Forum (i.e., Bille Floyd) suffers NO consequences - while a member who was attacked (in clear violation of the forum rules) is thrown out of one of the largest, best known, online hang gliding communities.

I wonder what % of the USHPA membership are low life miscreants? Seems like I've got two more names to add to a steadily growing list.

(* * * Are you reading this Davis, or perhaps, some pal of Davis' ? I'll be seeing you in court - sooner, . . . or later. )

[Bob Kuczewski]

It's very disappointing that Davis has banned you for simply speaking up for yourself against someone attacking and insulting you. He should have just cooperated with any information he had and remained neutral. For him to ban you and then delete the entire topic shows what kind of person he is.

[wingspan33]

. . . For him to ban you and then delete the entire topic shows what kind of person he is.

As to what kind of person he is, . . . a low life miscreant.

Oh, . . . and a CRIMINAL as far as destroying evidence of a crime goes.

A Primary USHPA Membership Requirement Includes: A person : ". . . of good character . . . " Does this fit with Davis Straub? . . . . I think not.

Should Davis Straub be excluded from membership of the USHPA? . . . . IMHO - Yes!

But then, the USHPA is soooooo Screwed Up that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Luckily, I am quite familiar with a specialist in Forest Ecology!

[dhmartens]

I am sorry I disagree. This debacle is a bad landing and you own it.
If you knew the Constitutional history of Australia and how they kept respect for the crown all the while you would see you insulted the Queen Elizabeth II. Possible worse you have insulted Chuck Hagel who want to see US Australian aviation good will.
You were given a free speech are of the forum to post in and then violated the terms of service and then asked to be banned.
It is best to own up to a bad landing and then move on, after being defensive about it.

I forgive you because you are really close to this issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/2 ... 67138.html

http://www.chathamhouse.org/academy

[Bob Kuczewski]

I am sorry I disagree. This debacle is a bad landing and you own it.

Hi Doug,

There have been a lot of people banned from the Oz Forum, and quite a few of them post to the US Hawks. Just to be clear ... whose particular debacle are you referring to in your post?

Thanks.

[Bill Cummings]

I am sorry I disagree. This debacle is a bad landing and you own it.
If you knew the Constitutional history of Australia and how they kept respect for the crown all the while you would see you insulted the Queen Elizabeth II. Possible worse you have insulted Chuck Hagel who want to see US Australian aviation good will.
You were given a free speech are of the forum to post in and then violated the terms of service and then asked to be banned.
It is best to own up to a bad landing and then move on, after being defensive about it.

I forgive you because you are really close to this issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/2 ... 67138.html

http://www.chathamhouse.org/academy

D.M.,
I wasn’t able to understand the connection between any post and insulting the Queen and/or Chuck Hagel.
Also whom and where was someone in violation of “terms of service?”
I am unable to connect the dots but then that could be saying more about me than I would want out in view of the public.

[wingspan33]

DH -

I too am not sure who you are responding to, or your general point. The Queen? Australia? The X US Secretary of Defense? Not sure how they come into the picture. ( ? ? ? )

As to my being shut out of the OZ Report Forum, . . . Another member violated the Oz Forum's terms of use in attacking and defaming me. All I did was to identify, in a subsequent post, that his post amounts to a (serious) Hate Crime here in NYS and that I wanted his identifying information (IP address). In no way did I violate forum rules by doing so.

[dhmartens]

I think ozreport is run much like Disneyland, The happiest place on earth, the Magic Kingdom.

It is a tourist attraction that boasts a trash can every 30 steps.

I think he invited you to post down in the Pirates of the Caribbean ride where all the scuffles break out normally
or Club33 that serves alcohol for $12,000 year membership.

Even Disneyland has their problems


It seems ozreport is allowing some of Bob's post to be reposted in their main forum.

Please note: Chuck Hagel is currently the Secretary of Defense. Sixth inline to be President
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... of_Defense