u$hPa BOD Reform Vote

[Bob Kuczewski]

As reported on Oz:

Results of Governance Proposal Vote

Dear USHPA member,

Thank you for participating in the governance proposal vote. In total, 32% of members voted, and we appreciate your taking the time to share your opinion.

The final vote was FOR the proposal at 1623 votes (58%) in favor to 1176 votes (42%) against. Detailed results on the membership vote from the independent election service are available here: https://secure.electionbuddy.com/results/3LFCK2C75ZGT

We received two requests for paper ballots, but none were returned before the close of the election. Since there are no paper ballots to tabulate, these are the final results. We will provide a regional breakdown once certified by the election service provider.

While change can be difficult, we're confident in our members' decision that a smaller governing body will be more efficient and effective, better represent all of our members, and have a greater ability to try new initiatives to grow our sports and support all of our instructors, chapters, and pilots.

Because the membership voted to pass the proposal, USHPA's board size will be reduced at the end of the Spring board meeting in 2 weeks. This process will follow the transitional board plan laid out in USHPA's Bylaws as accepted by the membership vote. The existing officers will carry forward to the new board. Board members interested in remaining on the board will be nominated (or self-nominated), then voted on by the rest of the board. The diversity algorithm will then be applied to determine the result of this vote in order to ensure that all regions, wing types, genders, and ages possible are represented on the transitional board. Please note that all Regional Directors from regions that did not approve the bylaw amendment (i.e., voted against the proposal) will remain on the transitional board for the duration of their elected terms, with the result that the transitional board may be larger than 10 members. Since they will be carry over directors, they will not be eligible for the election taking place at the Spring meeting. In Fall 2019, an election will be held to begin replacing the transitional board to proceed to the new governance process.

We would like to thank James Bradley and the rest of the volunteers who identified an issue they wanted to change, then spent countless hours writing, revising, discussing, and promoting the proposal. USHPA relies on dedicated volunteers for much of the work that we do, and we sincerely appreciate their efforts to further the organization.

We know that this was a much-debated issue. If you are dissatisfied with the result of the vote, or with other areas within USHPA--volunteer! The governance proposal is a perfect example that volunteers can, and do, have a huge impact on our organization and our sport. We're always open to working with members to improve the organization for everyone. If you're interested in collaborating with us, please let us know through email or by filling out our volunteer form. You're also welcome to attend our Spring board meeting in Golden, CO in 2 weeks and to give us feedback there.

Thank you again to everyone who worked on the proposal, gave feedback, and participated in the vote. We're looking forward to continuing to improve our organization and to better serving our flying community.

[wingspan33]

Well, I see this step as the U$hPa sinking a bit deeper into oblivion. What gets me is that less than a third of the members voted! Like the name change back in the mid 2000s where similar lack lust numbers of pilots voted. These kind of changes should have somewhere between 51% and 66% required membership participation. Perhaps your vote being required in order to renew your membership would be an even better idea. That would result in 100% participation. But the brains at U$hPa just aren't that clever. They may also have figured that small voting numbers favored the resulting/favored outcome.

In some ways a smaller governing body may be a good idea. But think if the US decided to cut most of our elected officials out of the picture. Think about having only one elected politician from each state (and eliminating one branch of congress). Imagine how much easier it would be for improper influence to be placed on so many fewer elected individuals. It's bad enough as it is!

[Bob Kuczewski]

Perhaps your vote being required in order to renew your membership would be an even better idea. That would result in 100% participation. But the brains at U$hPa just aren't that clever.

Let's see ... who's been election chairman for as long as I can remember?
And who's been treasurer for as long as I can remember?

The election power and the money power ... all controlled by Mark Forbes because no other Director wants to do it.

In some ways a smaller governing body may be a good idea. But think if the US decided to cut most of our elected officials out of the picture. Think about having only one elected politician from each state (and eliminating one branch of congress). Imagine how much easier it would be for improper influence to be placed on so many fewer elected individuals. It's bad enough as it is!

Yes. If you remember my expulsion hearing, it was Mark Forbes who shut down Tiki's thoughtful question. The fish rots from the head.

[SamKellner]

Vote once again on the USHPA Governance proposal

Alan Crouse, USHPA President, via <communications> sends:

I'm writing to you from Golden, Colorado, where the USHPA spring board meeting has just finished. We expected to elect the new board based on the transition plan in the governance proposal after the normal meeting business of committee proposals and reports.

Unfortunately, the new board election didn't happen. Thanks to an attentive USHPA member we realized that the ballot we sent out for the governance vote didn't quite conform to the legal requirements. In particular, we didn't state on the ballot itself what was necessary--in terms of a quorum and a vote percentage--for the measure to pass. This may seem like a small technicality, but after investigation, the elections team and USHPA's legal counsel determined that it was important. Under California case law, this small oversight could have placed the organization in jeopardy.

The result is that we will soon be sending you a corrected ballot for a re-vote. This will be a do-over; the proposal and bylaws you are voting on remain unchanged. The many kinds of information about the proposal are still available at ushpa.org/govprop .

We apologize we didn't catch this small yet crucial technicality, and again we are thankful a keen USHPA member had our back. Having learned of the problem, it is clear that it is in the best interest of the organization to correct it.

On the bright side, the voting process is simple and quick, and the re-vote will give even more members the opportunity to participate. Please vote when you get the new ballot. If you didn't vote before, you have another chance. If you want to change your vote from the previous election, this opportunity is also available with the new election. In the meantime, we are continuing to operate with the old board of directors, with no loss of continuity. The existing board continues to work to help secure the future of free flight, focusing on training, safety, sites, instruction, our regulators, and most importantly on working with you, our members.

we didn't state on the ballot itself what was necessary--in terms of a quorum and a vote percentage--for the measure to pass.

Thanks to an attentive USHPA member

Question : who makes the decision on

1 "what is necessary" for a quorum
2 vote percentage for the measure to pass
3 who is the "attentive member" they are repeatedly bringing up

This all sounds fishey to me

[JoeF]

If one doesn't get the result one wants:
just do it again.

[SamKellner]

Vote NO campaign

The reform vote did Not carry in region 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csuMgDh ... pp=desktop

[wingspan33]

Sam, I just watched the video you linked to. It was very good. If I could I would vote NO. But I haven't been a U$hPa member for 6 years. They should have made better decisions 10 - 15 years ago.

[wingspan33]

Sam, I just watched the video you linked to. It was very good. If I could I would vote NO. But I haven't been a U$hPa member for 6 years. They should have made better decisions 10 - 15 years ago.

[SamKellner]

Yep, I did my voting with my feet too. I dropped my membership 3 or 4 years ago and don't think I'll ever rejoin. Especially since USHGPR is available to retain ratings.

I can't believe anyone would re-up just to be able to vote in this Reform.

I'm getting plenty of satisfaction seeing the likes of Paul Voight create this anti-u$hPa video.

Also R.D. Tiki Mashy is expressing such opposition.

And I'm proud to know that at least Reg.11 voted it down the first time.

[wingspan33]

Sorry everyone for the double post. There's glitch in the system that makes you think your post hasn't gone through. I usually check to be sure but obviously missed this one.

Besides that -

Sam, I am wondering what anti-U$hPa video Paul Voight has put out. When I was a member Paul was my Region 12 Director. He was SOOOO pro U$hPa that when I started disliking the direction the Assoc was headed (back in 2006) he went from good friend to attacking my (very sound) arguments.

Do you have a link to this video? I'm expecting that it's somewhere on the internet. I'd like to have a look at it.