James Bradley <<jb183>>
writes:

Results

32% of USHPA's members voted. I was hoping for 25% so I think we did well. We’re
a volunteer-led non-profit organization and this was a complex issue. As you’ve
no doubt seen, the measure passed, 58% to 42%.

One way to look at the results is that just 13.4% of the members were against
the proposal strongly enough to vote against it.

What’s next

At the spring board meeting next week the old board will meet as it has. Near
the end there will be an election for the directors on the new board. The four
officers will carry forward, with the remaining 6 seats up for election. Any
current director can self-nominate or be nominated by another director.

In addition, under California non-profit law the director(s) from any region
that did not within itself pass the measure must be allowed to serve out their
terms. Regions 9, 10, 11 and 12 did not pass the measure, so we will have some
carryover directors. This was anticipated and addressed in our transition plan.
USHPA will have a board of 17 this year and 13 in 2020.

The diversity algorithm will be applied in this election for the first time.
Below is a draft what the chart will look like. With the officers and carryovers
comprising the standing board, the only region not represented is 2, so the
first person selected will be the top vote getter from region 2. Next we’ll need
one more PG pilot (or none, if the region 2 person flies a PG). Next, while we’d
like to have 3 “younger" people there is only one on the candidates list (Owen
Shoemaker). If he runs, he’ll be elected. With no more women in the room this
will leave 3 seats completely up for grabs (or 4 if either Owen doesn’t run or
the region 2 person flies a PG, or 5 if both of those things happen).

We don’t know yet who will choose to run for the new board, so for now I’ve
listed all the possible candidates.