[Bob Kuczewski]

Every once in a while I check on the Oz Forum. I just saw a post from Swift that just blew me away. Steve Kroop was making his case for a smaller Board, and DougM (Marley?) started talking about open voting. Let's listen in ...

Perhaps the things that did not get done or passed were not what was best for our sports, or best for pilots from the East Coast through the West Coast, and everywhere else in our country. The word 'Diversity' is a nice PC word that I don't trust. Nor do I want someone from any other region to vote for my RD. Pilots in the West (etc.) have little to zero idea what pilots in my and other regions need to keep our sports active, and likely do not know the pilots running for office. This proposal is merely to buffer the resultant elected RD's from their constituents' scorn due to their voting habits not coinciding with their region's needs.

Take for example the BoD vote to allow the membership to actually vote on this issue before us now. The vote to allow the whole membership to vote was 14 - 7. Who were the seven BoD members who did not want the membership to vote? If these same seven were the majority who might have been 'representing' us now, then we would not have any say whatsoever in nearly any issue. No, IMO the defined types of diversity choices are not the answer, nor is a much-reduced BoD-count who will have fewer ties to their larger regions that they will represent.

There also needs to be complete 'transparency' on how the BoD members have voted in each and every vote. This is the only way we as members can determine the validity and value of the elected RD of the region. The RDs are OUR voice, and are not serving unto themselves. As soon as the BoD members have no requirement to explain their votes, then they no longer represent us the membership. This has to change.

Swift replied:

Take for example the BoD vote to allow the membership to actually vote on this issue before us now. The vote to allow the whole membership to vote was 14 - 7. Who were the seven BoD members who did not want the membership to vote?

Probably the same group that are trying to become the new consolidated leadership.

There also needs to be complete 'transparency' on how the BoD members have voted in each and every vote. This is the only way we as members can determine the validity and value of the elected RD of the region. The RDs are OUR voice, and are not serving unto themselves. As soon as the BoD members have no requirement to explain their votes, then they no longer represent us the membership. This has to change.

You don't remember this Doug because you weren't around but this has been seriously discussed before by a RD that can not now be named. It was such a good idea that they threw the RD out of the USHPA and smeared his name. I think some of your recent dialog attests to the success of the smear campaign. Are you sure you are against the proposed consolidation of power or are you really for it?

WOW!!!    Swift, please contact me somehow!!!

Then comes Mark G. Forbes (MGF) with two back to back posts:

The vote to allow the whole membership to vote was 14 - 7. Who were the seven BoD members who did not want the membership to vote?

You construe a meaning which does not exist. Any change like this one MUST be voted on by the entire membership. Those voting "no" were voting not to refer the proposal to the members and to drop the entire effort without any further action. They were not voting in opposition to giving our members the right to decide. They were voting to leave the board as-is and take no action that would reduce its size or structure.

MGF

You don't remember this Doug because you weren't around but this has been seriously discussed before by a RD that can not now be named. It was such a good idea that they threw the RD out of the USHPA and smeared his name. I think some of your recent dialog attests to the success of the smear campaign. Are you sure you are against the proposed consolidation of power or are you really for it?

We tested a vote logging system at the last BOD meeting, and it seems to have worked pretty well. Results will be in the meeting minutes. As usual, most of the votes were unanimous, just like we've always logged them in the minutes, but now there's a digital record that lists them all by individual as well.

As for He Who Must Not Be Named… It was his own actions that brought about his expulsion. The members of his own region threw him out of office, and that effort started the day that the election results were made public. Members were aghast that he'd been elected to represent them, by virtue of collaring unsuspecting newbies at a flight park entrance and getting them to vote for him. When people don't bother to vote, sometimes they get an unexpected outcome.

If you take deliberate actions which harm USHPA and cost the membership a bunch of money, for your own selfish reasons, you may reasonably expect to face some disciplinary action. If your response to that is to double down on defiance and derision of the elected board, you might expect that body to be less than sympathetic to your cause. To claim that HWMNBN was "smeared" or expelled from USHPA for his opinion about voting procedures is ludicrous.

MGF

What an outright liar. The Torrey crew were at that flight park every single day telling their "unsuspecting newbies" to vote for Jebb - who ran the flight school they were attending. I was banned from the flight park by Jebb himself. So I may have spent half a dozen days campaigning at the gate (probably much less than that). How could I have possibly been "collaring unsuspecting newbies" at any rate comparable to the full-time indoctrination they were getting from their instructors? Mark Forbes is a stinking liar!!

As far as taking actions against USHPA that cost the members money, Mark Forbes knows that I warned USHPA - in writing - about the dangerous instruction at Torrey when I was a Director in 2010. USHPA did nothing and it came back to bite them a year later when that same Torrey crew radio-controlled Shannon Hamby into a near fatal collision with another of their students.

As for electronic voting, I offered to do that as an open source project - for free - when I was a Director in 2009. It's only taken nearly another decade and how much money? And I'd be surprised if they're actually doing it anyway. Check the minutes to see what they're actually publishing.

Then Sam jumped in to call Forbes on his outrageous lies.   WOWEE!!   

by virtue of collaring unsuspecting newbies at a flight park entrance and getting them to vote for him. When people don't bother to vote, sometimes they get an unexpected outcome.

As the u$hPa membership slowly declines, to say that newbies elected Bob is an obvious falsehood.

The lying Mark Forbes had nothing to say to that.

Then came Ben Reese either outright lying or just exposing his ignorance:

He was voted out by RECALL one month later with far more votes than voted him in.

Mark is right, many regular members did not vote in the normal election.

So whatever your feelings on this issue of smaller BOD, make sure and vote.

I am glad Mark cleared the air on this rumor of 7-14 votes. 7 votes were to leave the BOD as is and 14 were to vote for or against reducing it.

This actually means 2:1 in favor of voting.

One could interpret this as a strong representation for change. This is why you must vote!!

This has a chance of passing, so if you don't want it then make some noise..

B R

For the record (and for the lying/ignorant Ben Reese) ...

I won the election against the incumbent David Jebb in December of 2008. I won by a vote of 122 to 98.

I lost the recall election in May of 2010 (not "one month later" as stated by the lying Ben Reese). The vote was 222 for my recall and 188 against my recall. I actually got over 50% MORE votes after I'd been Director for over a year than when I first ran against Jebb.

The ironic part of the lies told by Mark Forbes and Ben Reese is that they stated the facts exactly backwards. It was the Torrey PG business that signed up all their "newbie" students to vote against me. That's why there were so many more total votes in the recall election. New pilots don't normally vote because they don't typically know much about the politics, but the Torrey concession pushed (brainwashed) all their students to vote for the recall. They even had Helliwell's campaign poster propped up right on the sign-in counter at Torrey Pines along with propaganda pamphlets (see pictures below).

This shows how badly the so-called "doppleganger" sites can distort what the pilot community (and voting members) know. That's why it's so important to NOT surrender those sites to the forces of evil in this sport.

Swift, whoever you are, I've been following your posts and you seem to know where all the bones are buried. Please contact me any time!!   

Campaign poster for Bill Helliwell on sign-in desk at Torrey Pines in 2010 Recall Election

Poster_2010_04.jpg (145.56 KiB) Viewed 1897 times

Campaign handouts for Bill Helliwell on sign-in desk at Torrey Pines in 2010 Recall Election

Handout_2010_02.jpg (111.65 KiB) Viewed 1897 times