Brad, there's a proposed amendment on the table. Do you support it as is or not? If not, what would you change? These are not hard questions, so why are you dancing around them? We know that any RD can disclose how they vote if they want to. That's a red herring, and it's not the issue being discussed. The issue is what if they don't want to disclose how they've voted? How will their members know what they've done if they don't want to tell them? And with secret voting how would we know if a director was being honest with their disclosure anyway? With secret ballots you (Brad Hall) could vote against the Hawks (or the SHGA) and then come on this forum and say that you supported them!! There would be no way for the members to know the truth. This is a question of accountability to the people whom Directors are supposed to represent. Furthermore, the current ability of the President to arbitrarily make any given vote secret is far too much power concentrated in the hands of one person. And this is not a rare issue. Secret ballots were used twice in the last Board meeting alone!!Brad Hall wrote:Oscar,
As I said earlier, I will wait to see what the actual draft version, if any, the committee presents to the board for a vote (or not). The hypothetical amendment does not, in my opinion, represent a needed change. The President has the authority to call for a secret ballot when he/she deems it necessary. I have seen it used twice out of many votes, and I think it was a proper and viable way to address the issue at hand. It is a tool.
Any RD is free to disclose how they voted and the outcome of the actual vote is published on the USHPA web site. I do not know of one member that has ever asked (1) what was voted on at the BoD meeting?, and (2)
how did my RD vote on that issue?
Brad, I'm sorry, but I am going to have to use the "L" word here. You are lying to say that the Torrey Pines Soaring Council does not provide for the addition of new clubs. All of the Council's bylaws have contained a provision for amending the bylaws (which would include adding new clubs). The most recent bylaws that I was given by Gary Fogel (Council Chairman) even contains a special section for adding new clubs, so you are lying right there!! Here are the sections:Brad Hall wrote:2. No. I will not support adding the hawks to the TPSC. The council has its own set of bylaws which does not provide for the addition of another club to the existing group. There is a rep from the SDHGPA for both HG and PG, and a rep from the USHPA for both HG and PG. The council has stated it feels the sports are well represented. That is the councils choice, and no one has the right or authority to tell them otherwise. Apart from that, the club does not, as its name implies, represent the HG pilot community at Torrey Pines, and Bob in particular does not speak for that group of pilots.
You are lying right there when you state:The Soaring Council Bylaws (2001 version) wrote:Article 6, Section 1: Amendments to these Bylaws may be made at Regular or Special meetings of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council by approval of 2/3 of the voting membership; provided a notice of intention to amend the Bylaws has been sent by the Secretary to all of the voting members thirty days prior to the meeting.
Article 6, Section 2: New organizations can apply for representation on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council provided that no members of the Board of Directors or Executive Council of the applicant organization are in conflict of interest, reference Article III, Section 1. Any applicant organization must make a written request for representation. Any applicant organization must serve to fill a void not already covered by organizations currently represented on the Torrey Pines Soaring Council. A 2/3 of the Torrey Pines Soaring Council is required for ratification of any new organization.
"The council has its own set of bylaws which does not provide for the addition of another club to the existing group."
The Council's bylaws do provide for the addition of new clubs by either changing the bylaws or by using the application process outlined in their bylaws. You're busted right there Brad!
The Hawks applied by written request on September 12th, 2007 and yet a vote was never taken. USHPA is a voting member of the Soaring Council, and it is within USHPA's right (and I would say duty) to introduce a motion to add the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club. USHPA's motion would certainly carry some weight on the Council, and at least two other clubs have said that they would consider (or even follow) USHPA's lead on the matter. So your claims that there's nothing USHPA can do are false.
Furthermore, your posting is somewhat misleading (or at least unclear) when you state the "There is a rep from the SDHGPA for both HG and PG, and a rep from the USHPA for both HG and PG." As you know there is only ONE representative from the SDHGPA and only ONE representative from USHPA. Furthermore, by your choice (and the choice of David Metzgar) both of those representatives were paragliding pilots for 6 months until the Torrey Hawks came along. In other words, there were NO hang glider pilots at all on the Council until AFTER the Hawks applied. That's when the SDHGPA changed their representative in an attempt to keep the Hawks off of the Council. Furthermore, you know that the RC pilots have THREE clubs representing their ONE sport, while the sports of hang gliding and paragliding have to share TWO representatives for TWO sports. In other words, our sports are outnumbered by THREE to ONE, and yet you would not support adding another USHPA Chapter to represent hang gliding on that Council?
Having said all of that, at least you did give us an answer in this case. You have stated that you will NOT support adding the Torrey Hawks to the Soaring Council. So anyone who feels that we should have a more balanced Soaring Council, and anyone who feels that we should have a separate voice for hang gliding on the Council should support Jerry Katz (who has stated that he'll support adding the Hawks).
Brad, you know that for many years (long ago) the Torrey Pines Soaring Council accepted and reviewed incident reports at the Torrey Pines Gliderport. That is a role that they have historically embraced so that issues within the pilot community could stay within the pilot community. It's important to remember (for those who don't know) that the Soaring Council is just made up of member clubs. There are no governmental representatives on that Council - it's all pilots. So that Council is an ideal candidate for a "court of first appeal" (not of "last resort") so that pilots can have their issues reviewed by other pilots. This provides for a way to handle matters within the pilot community so pilots don't have to go to the City Council or the Mayor's office or the court system. This is a valuable role for the Soaring Council in solving matters within our community, and it is a role which USHPA should support but you have rejected.Brad Hall wrote:3.Support due process? What do you mean? Change what the TPSC is and does despite the stated intention of the council to not become Bobs "court of last resort"? Try to backdoor a club onto the council through the USHPA appointment process? The site is a City Park. The management is picked by the city through a RFP process, and a legal contract exists between the two. USHPA has no say in how the site is operated and does not even insure it.
You are partially right here. Since our (Torrey Hawks) efforts began over two years ago, things have gotten a lot better at Torrey Pines. The concessionaire there knows that they are being watched (like a Hawk). But even in these last few months we've had a case where the current concessionaire (Robin Marien or David Jebb?) tried to charge David Beardslee $100 to fly each of his tandem passengers at the Gliderport. This is in direct violation of the lease which clearly specifies an "outside tandem" fee of $25. Fortunately, our new USHPA appointee to the Soaring Council, Ken Baier (chosen by the Hawks to replace you Brad) spoke up about this abuse, and it appears to have been retracted in the past month or two. But without constant vigilance by the Hawks and our members, it's clear that these kinds of abuses would continue. So while you can say that things are certainly better at Torrey, you have to recognize the reason for those changes. That reason is the Torrey Hawks. If we want those changes to remain, then we need to ensure that the sport of hang gliding has its own permanent voice on the Soaring Council. Anyone who supports that goal should support Jerry Katz.Brad Hall wrote:Despite the picture that has been painted by a disgruntled few, the HG pilots at Torrey continue to fly and have a great time doing so. There is no conspiracy to kick out HGing. Ask the pilots that actually fly here, not the vocal few that complain about things based on web posts and never really experience the site themselves. Come on down and go flying.