Richard Hass <<richhass>>
writes:

Five years as USHPA’s president and many more years as a regional
director give me some perspective on the board resizing proposal members are
being asked to consider. While I value and respect every single board member now
serving, USHPA will be better served by a smaller board, where every director is
fully involved in every aspect of USHPA’s business and every member has an
opportunity to vote for the eight elected directors. At the same time, there
will be plenty of opportunities for volunteers to help shape the policies and
decisions determining the future of our sport.

Under the present construct, members, depending on their region, vote for from
one to three directors depending on region size. Many are incumbents running
unopposed, which contributes to limited voter turnout. The proposal being
considered gives every member an opportunity to vote for all eight elected
directors. A diverse board is a better board. The proposed structure values
diversification, where the existing structure offers nothing to encourage it.
What does this mean? Look at the demographics of our membership. We need the
vision of younger pilots, females and we need to assure continued representation
for both wing types. The proposed structure accomplishes this. The existing
structure doesn’t.

Some say a smaller board is less accountable and easier for an executive
director an/or president to manipulate. The opposite is actually the case. Right
now, much of the board-level decision making is left to the Executive Committee.
That is, four people are charged with everything from legal issues, operational
issues, staff compensation, insurance and managing things like a major database
transition. These are issues the entire board should participate in but with 26
directors, it isn’t feasible for monthly conference calls. As a result, there
are four directors completely up to speed and 22 others with a limited knowledge
of what should be some very important issues.

This isn’t good governance and it is one reason why the vast majority of
non-profits like USHPA have migrated to smaller, more accountable boards. Ask
around. How many similar organizations have 26 directors? (I refer to our own
congress as an example and rest my case.)

Lastly, I want to respond to comments saying the efforts on this re-org have
been at the expense of focusing on more important issues, like growing our sport
and membership. Not so. There has not been a single board member initiative
brought forward during this re-org process that has been sidelined or superseded
by discussion of the board size or any other initiative. Others say, this isn’t
the right time… OK, when is the right time?

Let’s try the new board initiative. Let’s get volunteers working on proposals to
bring positive changes to our organization and sport. Then, let's let ten
leaders in our sport—leaders we all participate in electing—decide which of
these proposals to run with. More isn’t always better. The status quo, while
working, doesn’t mean we can’t do better.