Shows a lot of thought and work in trying to create a more
efficient National Association, but...

Russ Locke <<russ>>
writes:

I’ve read the most recent Governance Proposal and it, like its
predecessor shows a lot of thought and work in trying to create a more efficient
National Association.   However, in my opinion it, in a number of areas, focuses
to narrowly on a specific goal and in doing so misses the big picture.
 Specifically:

The Proposal focuses on the difficulty of getting a difficult
process (getting insurance) through our existing Board of Directors.  In doing
so it misses the fact that we were successful in that endeavor and that success
was a result of our core strength – our members.  Hang/para glider pilots are
very passionate about their sport and any threats to their flying will be met
with an incredible amount of energy.  Numerous people around the country worked
to raise two million dollars and create our own insurance structure in just a
few months.  Think about that.  Conventional business usually takes years to
achieve this kind of success.  Any structure changes we make to the way our
National Association works must insure that we do nothing that hinders the
National Association’s relationship with our core strength, our members.  With
that, my individual concerns.

In reducing our regional structure from 13 to 5 regions, the
regions become geographically larger.  That by definition makes the Regional
Directors regional responsibilities to the pilots they represent more difficult
.  Under the Proposal the Southeastern Region covers the largest area with 16
states, Northwest Region equals 10 states and Northeast Region equals 16
states.  Even if we increase the number of Directors in a region, the
representation duties will be more difficult to the point of impossible.  But
this proposal doesn’t increase the number of Directors in the Region, it
decreases them.  In essence the Regional representation that I would argue has
served the sport in this country so well will cease to exist.  The authors have
proposed a number of communication changes to make up for any member
representation losses.  Fine, I strongly recommend those communication changes
be implemented and some way of verifying that they are working BEFORE any
changes be made to the existing Regional Director structure.

The Regional restructuring was done, so that on paper, the regions
have roughly the same number of pilots.  However, in a national election, this
does not guarantee an equal situation.  For a variety of reasons, rural
populations almost never have as high of a voter participation percentage as the
more densely populated areas.  All we have to do is look at our national
government’s elections to see numerous examples of this.  In this scenario, the
national elections will be controlled by the West and East Coasts.  In fact
splitting California in half will do nothing to the fact that this state will
have a larger if not overpowering effect on who becomes a Regional Director.  I
want to restate my perspective that in my experience on the Board I have seen
very valuable contributions from Directors coming from places like Idaho and
Kansas.  I can name names if someone really wants that level of detail.  In this
proposal, Directors elected from low pilot populations isn’t likely to happen.

Diversity is certainly a good thing, but the Proposal is very
arbitrary.  In general, if diversity is desired, you get that by having more
people participate, not less. In this Proposal , this section starts off with a
comment that that a pilot getting the most votes may not actually be selected to
be on the Board.  Seriously?  If that’s the case why have an election?  Just
look at the pool of available individuals, decide who fits the diversity
criteria and notify the membership who is on the Board.  Much simpler.   By
implication, a 45 year old has a different perspective than a 35 year old.  Give
me a break.  In my opinion, given the laws of this country, this might border on
age discrimination?  Then there’s the attempt to insure the Board has both
paraglider and hang glider pilots.  What about the growing number of pilots that
fly both?  Do they have to declare which is their favorite?  And what if, over
time, their preference changes?

And I could go on, but these two things, restructuring the Regions
with fewer Regional Directors  and shifting from a regional voting system to a
national election with or without a diversity requirement are enough to vote
down this Proposal for one straight forward reason.  This Proposal, while it may
create a leaner and more efficient National Association, it most certainly will
further alienate our membership and that is something we should never knowingly
do.

If, at some point in the future when an enhanced communication
structure is in place and working to the point where the current Regional duties
of our Directors are minimized and there is interest in revisiting a proposal
like this, fine.  But not now, especially when we’ve just seen the power of our
membership structure.