As I have indicated in the past regarding the “New Proposal”, I'm not a fan. I
(my opinion) recommend that you members vote against this proposal. You do not
want it to pass. Don’t just "not vote"…. VOTE no…. (if you agree with me…)
(Vote yes if you disagree with me!) J
This IS however, a 2nd chance to defeat this proposal, which would be better for
the membership (IMO). 6000 members didn’t vote last time… let’s fix that!
My reservations are, if anything, more critical after the Spring Board Meeting.
We learned only at the very end of the meeting that a “do-over” is needed.
Throughout the balance of the meeting, we were operating as if the conversion
(to the new BOD system) was to happen at the conclusion of the meeting, but the
process seemed very confusing… with lots of questions no-one had answers for.
To get on with it….Here are some of my arguments why the “new proposal” is a
sketchy gamble (IMO):
My MAIN objection... is that I don't think the old system is broken. I saw it
evolve over time, and it has worked well for many, many years. Decisions (by the
current board) are carefully vetted by many minds, and the policies that result
are arguably well thought out. Proponents of the new proposal basically Hijacked
the MAY magazine and stated (as if it were fact)… that the old system is broken,
while describing the new proposal as a “save all” concept (as if that were
fact). That was questionable behavior.
This new proposal… if passed… will not be a success out of the box (if at all).
It will take many seasons to work out the quirks as they arise. We will be
wasting lots of time implementing and refining this program.
JUST as important: Regional representation will be all but gone if this proposal
passes. Regional representation is the best part of the current system we have!!
The original proposal had NO regions…. But critics prevailed… so this Band Aid
“five region idea” is supposed to be the answer. One region would have 3 states…
two others 16 states each?? Another 4 states… and one with 10 states. 1750
pilots / “elected official” is the defense for this. Director elections will be
Nationwide…. Not regional, so West coasters could affect who is representing
Vermonters ;-)
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.
A small group did all the RRRG insurance crisis work, (and I appreciate that!)…
but the product (as we know) is fraught with issues that need a lot of fixing
(IMO). I only mention this as an example of how more minds might have made a
better product?
The decline in the Sports won't be fixed (more easily) (or at all) by a smaller
BOD, (IMO)
Creating a small board... so it can function "effectively"... like the RRRG
group did.... (Making BOD & Bylaws changes that allow this to be "proper"
procedure) is not in the USHPA membership's best interest. Fast decisions do not
= GOOD decisions!
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 spent the last 24 months discussing this proposal already…. And now plan
to spend more time on it.
THEN… if it passes…we will have to spend much more time & resources to address
glitches in the roll out… (I predict) over the next 3-5 years or more. (while
still addressing RRRG fires and a shrinking pilot and instructor base).
In 5 years… new board members will inherit this program, as the board changes
personnel, and they will have one mess on their hands. (and very few instructors
and pilot members left)
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. (funny… But not so funny)
I don't believe “outside of the board structure” committee work will happen as
they hope it will... 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 (the
people you may want in there)… 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.
My biggest beef with this is concept is the missing diversity component.
INSTRUCTORS! There needs to be a person(s) of instructor background who will
look at problems from the perspective of making instruction more attractive and
affordable to current and future instructors.
I would hate to see this proposal pass… and then… become a failed experiment
afterwards. THEN WHAT ??
I can’t promise the large (current) board can fix the Sports declining
numbers... 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.
