The USHPA BOD reform vote

For discussions not directly related to hang gliding.
Previous topicNext topic
User avatar
The Oz Report
Posts: 145053
Joined: Thu, Feb 27 2003, 06:38:33 pm

The USHPA BOD reform vote

Post by The Oz Report »

<div id="1543846298"><i>Tiki's Perspective.</i><br><p>Tiki Mashy writes:</p><p class="BN">To My Fellow USHPA Members,</p><p class="BN">It is REALLY important that you vote. We are a small group so your vote will speak volumes.</p><p class="BN">I'll start by saying I am NOT in favor of the Governance Proposal and here is why (this may seem like a long read, but it is vitally important you understand what you are being asked to decide): This “Governance” issue came to the forefront just after our insurance crisis. That's why the insurance crisis example keeps coming up as a reason for a smaller board. They reason that the Board was not kept informed of the crisis because it was too large and would have taken too much time to bring the Board up to speed. So the work was done by a small group of people.</p><p class="BN">It is now reasoned that a smaller board is needed to deal with a future crisis. What future crisis? If anything, the crisis we are facing now started a long time ago with our declining membership. This is the critical issue that needs to be addressed – not how the Board should “govern” itself.</p><p class="BN">Straight to the point, this Governance Proposal wants to concentrate more power in fewer hands; making less representation for the membership. The USHPA is a member driven organization. You, as a member, give this Board its power. To put that leadership in fewer hands would be disastrous. Also, as a member driven organization it is most important that when members reach out for help, they have their local USHPA Director there to help with local issues, which gives them a direct line to their organization. Yes, we need change within the organization, but this Governance Proposal does nothing for the area of change that is needed. In some ways it actually restricts growth.</p><p class="BN">I'll get cut-off at the knees from some of my fellow Board members for saying this, but this Governance Proposal is the USHPA Board once again focusing on themselves, not the membership, not the instructors, not the schools, chapter or clubs, and certainly not the real critical issue facing hang gliding and paragliding – lack of growth. Seriously, USHPA needs to quit re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and address the gaping hole in the side of the ship. Our boat is sinking and as a member you and I should demand USHPA pay attention. This Governance Proposal is just another example of USHPA holding themselves above the membership. It is a distraction that needs to be quashed. The USHPA needs to get focused:</p><p class="BN">- Concentrate on growth and promotion. Realize that growth and promotion is happening at the local level and it is not effective to promote growth at a national level.</p><p class="BN">- Make things easy for chapters, schools, clubs, instructors and competition organizers.</p><p class="BN">- Engage and harness the talent in the membership, the clubs, and the chapters.</p><p class="BN">- Grow the membership by strengthening and validating the small instructors and supporting the schools</p><p class="BN">This Governance Proposal essentially changes nothing except to put the same power the Board is already wielding in far fewer hands and giving you, the member, far less of a voice. USHPA is a non-profit organization. This Governance Proposal seeks to manage it as a corporation – big mistake.</p><p class="BN">We don't need diversity programs like there are in large corporations. The Governance Proposal's diversity equation disenfranchises the membership at large and does nothing at all to address our critical issues. One reason, in a nutshell the diversity equation is highly unsuitable for our organization is; if a member gets the most national votes but does not fit into the “diversity equation” that member will not be selected to the Board. Imagine that…the person the membership deemed will do the best job is counted out because of the “diversity equation.” Conversely a member who may only get a small number of votes has a better chance of being elected if they have the needed diversity make up. Seriously, that's how it works.</p><p class="BN">Your smaller board will be made up of the members who checked all the “right “diversity boxes. There's even a provision if the equation doesn't work, than the other smaller board members get to pick someone – anyone. Wow – member driven organization? Not under this Proposal.</p><p class="BN">Hence, under this Governance Proposal this is where your leadership will come from, the power concentrated in these fewer men and women. That's a bit scary. This Governance Proposal isn't going to help get more members, we need to leave it and begin the real work. Again we need promotion from within and that comes from the local level, with just some basic support from USHPA in the form of insurance, rating programs, representation with the FAA, a magazine, etc. USHPA as a membership facilitator.</p><p class="BN">Let's face facts we're losing small instructors, schools, chapters, clubs and members – tell me how this “business as usual” Governance Proposal with its smaller board is going to change anything. It will in fact do the opposite. Members will get even more disgusted because they have less representation, the needs of the individuals/groups/clubs/chapters will not be met, schools and instructors will grow increasingly fed up with the lack of support and hang gliding and paragliding will continue to decline until it's on the bottom with its legs up.</p><p class="BN">Sometimes I am disgusted by the lack of foresight of this Board and their failure to stay focused on the real issues. We need to direct the current Board along with the members to focus their efforts on building membership by cultivating our schools and instructors, making things better for them, because that is where our real growth will come from. It is in those hands that the future of hang gliding and paragliding lay. Make it better for them and it will be better for the membership at large.</p><p class="BN">Passing this Governance Proposal with its diversity agenda, supersized regions and fewer member representation is a recipe for disaster. Wake up folks, your organization needs your help, our membership is shrinking and this Governance Proposal does nothing to address that critical issue.</p><p class="BN">There is so much talent and knowledge on the current Board that could be better managed, the committees especially need fixing. Membership involvement could be better managed. An unconscionable amount of time has been expended on this Governance Proposal issue (years that the membership has known nothing about) and for what? It's not gotten us any closer to solving what's really broken.</p><p class="BN">We don't need a smaller Board, we need to fix what we have, focus on surviving this downturn and growing the membership. A smaller board is not a recipe for growth. The Board spends far too much time pulling the train down a broken track, when we should be fixing the track – not buying a smaller train. One thing the Board did agree on is that nobody really likes this Governance Proposal, but because of all the work expended the vote passed to send it to the membership to decide.</p><p class="BN">So here we are. I hope we can finally put this to rest and get on with what is truly crippling this organization. I will be voting “NO” on this Governance Proposal and if you care about the longevity of our sport, you will stand with me on the side of growth, instructors, schools, chapters, clubs and organizers. Call, email me anytime if you would like to discuss this matter, I welcome all conversations for or against.</p><p class="BN">Respectfully Submitted,</p><p class="BN">Tiki Mashy, Regional Director Region 6, 11 and International</p></div>
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CloudHopper »

Tiki's write-up makes a lot of sense. In a twisted way, she might just inspire enough ex-members to re-join just so they can vote "NO" to the silly board proposal.
User avatar
Gary
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue, Sep 23 2003, 06:44:16 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: The USHPA BOD reform vote

Post by Gary »

For sure our overriding issue is the ongoing loss of participants.
1) We need to find a way to let people know this is accessible to them
2) We need to ensure we can train them

I'd like to see WAY more open discussion of those issues than is presented anywhere.

Shuffling the deck chairs… seems an apt analogy.
User avatar
Steve R
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue, Jun 29 2004, 01:19:36 pm
Location: Brisbane, California

Re: The USHPA BOD reform vote

Post by Steve R »

I agree with Tiki!
User avatar
Voighter
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed, Dec 12 2007, 09:33:51 am
Location: Hang Gliding School Owner

Post by Voighter »

Well...even with the newest "improved" governance proposal... I'm not a fan. I recommend the members need to vote against this proposal. You do not want it to pass. Here are some of my arguments on the matter:

My MAIN objection... is that I don't think the old system is broken. I saw it evolve and work great for many, many years.

The decline in our Sports is what has folks frustrated... and they think changing the BOD structure is going to fix the Sports. Not going to happen.
When the insurance crisis happened, yes... the mechanics of the "large" BOD were problematic in a time crunch situation... and also frustrated these same people.

The decline in the Sports won't be fixed (more easily) (or at all) by a smaller BOD.
Creating a small board... so it can function "effectively"... like the RRRG group did.... (Making a BOD & Bylaws that allow this to be "proper" procedure) is not in the USHPA membership's best interest, (IMO).

A great analogy for this proposal is: “The ship is sinking fast… and this “restructuring the board idea” is just changing out the motor… rather than dealing with the huge hole in the side of the ship” (Losing instructors… not generating new members…. basically withering away to nothing…)

We have wasted the last 12-18 months discussing this already…. And plan to waste the next 3-5 months even if it doesn’t pass the membership vote.
THEN… we will have to expend time & resources to address glitches in the roll out if it passes..… over (I predict) the next 3-5 years or more. (while still addressing RRRG fires)

In 5 years… new board members will inherit this nightmare, as the board changes personnel, and they will have one mess on their hands. (and very few instructors and pilot members left...)

The 5 Regions idea in the proposal is very hokey. It's just a “fix” (to the original proposal that had no regions) to appease the folks who were not in favor of the original proposal.

I don't think the membership will have enough Intel or enthusiasm to vote for people from all over the country for this "new board". I’m not convinced vote minimums will be met.

I believe self interest groups could get a person (or more) on to this new board with enough lobbying amongst the conspirators. LOL

I don't believe committee work will happen as they hope it will.... outside of this small board. Why would it? ;-)

A LARGE part of this proposal (besides “shrinking” the board) involves attempting to get “diversity” on the board. Persons who WIN elections… WILL BE BY-PASSED for persons of diverse age, wing type, gender and Region. There is also a possibility that a region(s) can be left with NO regional directors for terms… if no “viable” persons from a region get enough votes nationally. Seriously.

I would hate to see this proposal pass… and then… worse yet… fail. I'm not sure the large (current) board can fix the Sports declining numbers... at this point... but they can produce as good (and probably better/more well vetted)... policies than a small board would... and can start doing it NOW without this distraction.

Just 2 cents....
Cheers!

Paul Voight




[size=large][/size][size=normal][/size]
User avatar
Luke Waters
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun, Sep 03 2006, 11:32:56 am

Post by Luke Waters »

This is a very well thought out opinion, and clearly written, coming from a true leader in our sport, thanks Tiki!

I agree with everything Paul and Tiki are saying, my vote will be "no".

My biggest complaint of USHPA has been the lack of transparency. I feel there are many decisions that the membership or BOD votes on, when we are not given all of the information to make an informed choice, or not given the information in a non-biased way. The insurance crisis was a perfect example.

This vote on BOD size is another example. I don't see anything coming from USHPA that clearly lays out what we are voting on. It takes coming to the forum and seeing these posts from Tiki and Paul when we really find out what we are voting on, which is not only to reduce the size of the board, but to require this diversity in the board based on gender, region, age, and WING TYPE. BS! Let's elect board members that represent our regions by votes from the membership, not from what the few board members decide represents "diversity".

And I'm in 100% agreement with the Titanic comparison. Why are we even wasting time on this issue? Is there any legit argument that the large board is contributing to our declining membership? No? Then lets move on and address the real issues! The elephant in the room nobody is talking about is the instructor crisis. Under current RRRG/USHPA policy we have seen a huge loss of instructors. Not only are we seeing very few new instructors, but many long time instructors and flight parks are not participating in USHPA, or hanging it up all together. No flight parks in Florida are playing the game, several instructors in the South West are hanging it up, and those are only the regions I know about, I'm sure instructors all across the country are doing the same. How is this dramatic loss in instruction not a HUGE RED FLAG that USHPA should be dropping everything else to address? USHPA should be doing "exit interviews" with all of these schools and instructors and doing everything they can to change policies and make it easier for instruction to continue.
User avatar
CloudHopper
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sun, Mar 09 2003, 08:35:41 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by CloudHopper »

So far we've heard from several experienced USHPA leaders, and the apparent polling indicates that only about 15% of those are in favor of the governance proposal. Hopefully the general voting will reflect a similar percentage and this silly proposal will go down in flames faster than an overcooked Hindenburger.
User avatar
Gotandem
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue, May 11 2004, 09:32:16 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Gotandem »

I'm afraid the proposal is much more popular with the paragliding pilots.
User avatar
Steve R
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue, Jun 29 2004, 01:19:36 pm
Location: Brisbane, California

Post by Steve R »

Gotandem wrote:I'm afraid the proposal is much more popular with the paragliding pilots.
Why would you think PG pilots would like this any more than HG pilots? It doesn't matter what kind of wing you fly, this would be bad for everyone, IMHO.
User avatar
Gotandem
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue, May 11 2004, 09:32:16 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Gotandem »

I started a topic on paraglidingforum.com just to check the waters. Not much interest. And the reactions that are posted are in favor of the proposal. I hope I'm wrong.
Previous topicNext topic