US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

There's an interesting discussion taking place on the Oz Report about the possibility of a USHPA forum:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21943

Mark Forbes is using his usual "fear of lawyers" argument to sweep it away. Of course, what he (and the other Directors) really fear is that with a real forum, the members might expect real answers from them. Right now, the Directors that don't want to answer questions either stay off the forums or only post to forums where they're "protected" by the moderators.

The Region 3 Recall election was a good example of both. Bill Helliwell wouldn't set foot on hanggliding.org, but Davis gave him a safe haven on the Oz Report. I challenged Bill Helliwell with some serious questions about open voting and supporting local chapters. Bill didn't want to answer and Davis moved my posts to a special out-of-the-way forum where few people visited. That forum has now been removed altogether leaving no trace of those questions or of Bill's refusal to answer. I challenged Davis on this and he banned me. Those kinds of shenanigans would be much harder to get away with on a national forum operated by USHPA itself. Members might demand real answers, and Directors would be held accountable for dodging them. It would be harder to ban members without some kind of due process. So the current situation is much better for the status quo.

So that's the real reason that USHPA won't have a national forum. The EC and the Board fear openness, and that's why they banned recording their meetings, and that's why they barred me (as a Director) from the EC teleconferences. But Mark spins a nice story blaming the widely despised legal profession as his scapegoat. Nothing changes, and we get to pay for an organization that serves the EC more than its members.

In that same topic ...

Jim Rooney wrote:And so we have this… which works.
It works because Mark, Rich and others have joined in the party with us.

No Jim. It doesn't work. Mark, Rich and the others are there to keep you marginally satisfied with the status quo. They've corrupted Davis to the point where he removed my posts challenging Bill Helliwell about open voting by the Board. Why? Why in the world would Davis - who claims to be a journalist - remove the questions that one candidate asks of another?

The answer is that USHPA gave Davis a seat in the competition discussions for him to do their dirty work on the forums. USHPA could never have removed my challenges and gotten away with it. But Davis has no obligation to anyone but Davis. So he was able to get away with it and no one noticed. After all, how do you notice a post that's been removed - especially if it was removed very quickly before it could be seen? How do you notice comments made by someone who's not there?

So no Jim, the current system does NOT work. Ask anyone who's been banned and you'd know that. Of course, until the US Hawks came along, there wasn't any place to ask anyone who's been banned ... because they weren't around to answer!!

No Jim. It doesn't work. Mark, Rich and the others are there to keep you marginally satisfied with the status quo. They've corrupted Davis to the point where he removed my posts challenging Bill Helliwell about open voting by the Board. Why? Why in the world would Davis - who claims to be a journalist - remove the questions that one candidate asks of another?

Ha! Davis is corrupted by a higher evil than the USHPA! Don't blame them for that.
They didn't do anything but take advantage of it. They just threw him a plum as payback!
They got what they wanted at a cheap price. That's how top down entities operate.
Corporations don't have souls and neither does Davis.

"It's a spiritual battle on a political battlefield" Dr. Stan

"It's the soul-less brothers against the banned of brothers" Dr. Free

Good observations Warren!!!

Here's the latest from the Oz Report topic at http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21943 ...

Chattaroy Man wrote:Hmmm… read the thread and I just can't help but feel as if USHPA is losing a great communication tool (online forums) simply due to fear. The free flight community exists in great part because we've all challenged and overcome our fears. I say damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. To me, USHPA has more to lose by not having forums. I would suggest that USHPA start out modestly - as one might do in learning hg or pg - with forums on limited topics and see how things go. If Otto's mom or Orville & Wilbur's mom told them that the reality was that humans did not have wings and could/should not fly where would we be? To get-r-done reality often has to take a back seat - or simply left behind. I believe that USHPA members are up to the task of making forums work.

USHPA fears being accountable directly to the membership. They may say it's fear of lawsuits, but it's really fear of us. Imagine a topic where people could ask their Directors how they voted. Imagine a topic where people could ask the EC why they're not supporting a resolution passed by the entire board. I know (from experience) that most directors don't like to answer real questions like that. That's why they hold secret ballots and very rarely participate in forums. They send Mark Forbes to selected forums to run "interference" for the rest of the Board. But even he picks his forums carefully to be sure that the moderator (Davis, for example) will shield him from any "difficult" members and/or questions.

Jim Rooney wrote:Been rolling this one around in my head.

A private forum would be a different animal I'd think.
Since the USHPA has the memberlist, then they'd be able to tie access to actual members.
So it becomes a "Members Only" thing.

This does two things as far as I can tell… both good.
I'd think that since it's not public… it's hang glider pilots talking to hang glider pilots… this liability concern goes way way down.

The second is "polling" starts really meaning something. Since it's actual members voting and not "online personas", you're getting a one to one vote… in other words, no one can vote more than once and all votes are from current members.

This sort of stuff can't be done here.
I'm not sure why it can't, or shouldn't be done by the USHPA.

?
Jim

You're right Jim. That's exactly what USHPA should be doing. That's what I started with the HGAA - an open organization where everyone can participate. But that's what USHPA doesn't want. If you think about it, it's also what Davis (OzReport) and Jack (hanggliding.org) should fear most. If USHPA really opened an active forum, then it might compete very well against both of those large national forums. But USHPA would be in a bind because they would have a hard time banning their own members who might speak up on an issue. Right now, both Jack and Davis can do what they want because people posting have no actual membership relationship with them. The USHPA forum administrators could not be so cavalier in their treatment of real dues-paying members. So they would need some form of due process for removing members from the forum. That would be tough for USHPA, and I doubt they would do it. The status quo works for the USHPA Board and it works for the national forum providers (Davis and Jack). Given that current situation, how much do you think the actual pilots even matter?

Andrew Vanis wrote:

Mgforbes wrote:We talked this over in the EC meeting this morning, and we think there's a way we can make it work that still limits our corporate exposure. We'll announce something once we get it all figured out.

MGF

It is GREAT it was discussed but why show it to us only when (if) it’s done?

Instead of providing something out of the blue (as it could be seen by those not involved it the process) one may consider providing updates and information about the various considerations as things develop. It is a great way to:
1 - get buy-in from various factions
2 - post the hurdles and what their implications are. Maybe someone reading it can provide a solution not thought of by the inside group – we don’t all know everything). If it is ultimately decided that such a project does not make sense, those that wanted it will know why.
3 - create advertisement for the venture so when it goes live it gets used instead of just being another benefit tucked three layers down in the USHPA web page.
4 – provide proof that the Communication goal set in the Spring 2010 BOD meeting is being worked on. It would be great to see USHPA communicating that the USHPA is working communication.

Good comment Andrew. You're right ... why show it only when it's done? Because that's how USHPA operates. USHPA pretends to be an organization of pilots, but that's not really true. USHPA is actually an organization of Directors supported by pilots. It's the Directors who get what they want. The Board's repeated refusal to pass a simple amendment on open voting should make that pretty clear to everyone. Davis should have been screaming about how that motion was killed by Lisa Tate, except now Davis has been "brought into the fold", so he's suddenly silent on some pretty important issues. Shame on Davis and his "journalistic integrity".

Scare! wrote:The Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association of Canada has one like that at http://hpac.ca/forum/

All members automatically get a login with their real name and are in the "members" usergroup, and have access to the Members Only sections. Much of it is readable by anyone though only Members can post.

There are lots of hidden forums for various committees and the Board of Directors and such, all synchronized automatically with the membership database. The BoD does all their voting right on the forum. Pretty slick.

That's exactly what USHPA doesn't want to do. They don't want to vote in public, and they don't want to be accountable for what they say. Have you forgotten that just last year (fall 2009) the USHPA Board passed a new SOP that banned the recording of our own Board meetings by our own members!?! What makes you think they want to go on line to hold open discussions and votes?

Jim Rooney wrote:The magazine as a communications tool is a crock of sh*t.
It's an ad revenue source.

The Canadians put us to shame.

It's so damn easy, yet we refuse to do it.

Jim

Gee, why would they refuse to be more open with the members? Any guesses?

Answer: They don't fear lawsuits. They fear US!!