US Hawks Hang Gliding Association

US Hawks Whistle Blower Protection SOP Clause wrote:US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

wingspan33 wrote:What do we all think on this?

US Hawks Whistle Blower Protection SOP Clause wrote:US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

US Hawks Whistle Blower Protection SOP Clause wrote:US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow or tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate, punish, allow or in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association Standard Operating Procedure, (SOP), and grounds for disciplinary action, and may also be subject to civil or criminal proceedings.

1. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
2. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
3. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
4. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
5. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
6. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
7. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
8. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not allow attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
9. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to retaliate [against] any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
   
10. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to punish any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
    
11. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to allow any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.
    
12. US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not tolerate attempts from any individual to in any way harm any individual(s) who reports a concern in good faith.

“Whistle Blower” Protection

Regardless of outcome, the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will support the complaint(s) made by any member - as well as any member’s right to express concerns
in good faith. The US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow, or tolerate attempts by any member or group of members to retaliate, punish, or in
any way harm any individual or individuals who report a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks
Hang Gliding Association's (Organizational Integrity/Safety In Flight Operations?) Guide and grounds for disciplinary action. Such retaliatory acts may also be subject
to civil or criminal proceedings.

Regardless of outcome, the US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will support the complaint(s) made by any member - as well as any member’s right to express concerns
in good faith. The US Hawks Hang Gliding Association will not encourage, allow, or tolerate attempts by any member or group of members to retaliate, punish, or in
any way harm any individual or individuals who report a concern in good faith. Such actions against a complainant will be considered a violation of the US Hawks
Hang Gliding Association's (Organizational Integrity/Safety In Flight Operations?) Guide and grounds for disciplinary action. Such retaliatory acts may also be subject
to civil or criminal proceedings.

bobk wrote:This is a situation where we might have several competing documents proposed. Now if we follow the traditional "nominate, second, vote" procedure for each proposal, then whoever jumps in and nominates first might have an advantage. For example, I might jump in and nominate my favorite version. At that point we might end up voting mine up or down without really considering the alternatives. That makes the result partially dependent on the order of the proposals. Since this is a forum where people are not following along minute by minute, that "order dependency" is even more harmful to an objective outcome.

So this might be a case where we want to accumulate a set of proposals and then vote on them using some multiple choice voting system.

With those thoughts in mind .. I'm going to do what I said, and "jump in" with this motion:

  I move that we open the topic to specific proposals which must be flagged with the "nominate" tag and contain a unique title, and that we accept such nominations until 2 am on April 2nd (PDT). At that time, we will begin voting in this same topic with the voting closing at 5am on April 5th (the 2,2, and 5,5 were chosen to be more easily remembered). The voting will be done using the simple Condorcet method, and the list of choices shall include a choice titled "None of the Above" which allows for the case where we really aren't happy with the nominations.  

Would anyone like to second that motion?

bobk wrote:Thanks for the second Bill.

I vote   Yes   on the motion.