Forums: Archive: 2013-2015 USPA BOD Elections: Re: [SkydiveJack] USPA Proxy Effort Coming Up! Make Your Vote Count!: Edit Log


Apr 19, 2011, 9:25 AM

Views: 3450
Re: [SkydiveJack] USPA Proxy Effort Coming Up! Make Your Vote Count!

In reply to:
Do you have any input for us on the proposal to change a term from 2 to 3 years?

Proposal 1: To change the by-laws to specify a three-year term for all board members, effective
with the board seated at the winter 2013 meeting.

The most beneficial reason for this proposal is that it reduces the cost of elections that USPA members bear.
(After I get a reply from HQ, I'll post info on what the actual costs are.)
Another reason for this is that new board members are able to 'figure out how the system works' and become more effective over 6 meetings as opposed to only 4 meetings.

The most often cited reason against this is because members 'want to throw the bums out' sooner rather than later.
But if you look at the tenure of many BOD members, turnover really does not happen that often and the same people get re-elected.
Another drawback is that someone that does get elected may not fully understand the amount of work involved and want out before their term is up. This is a minor and infrequent issue.

My recommendation is to vote YES on this proposal.

Proposal 2: To change the by-laws to eliminate the requirement for non-incumbent regional
director candidates to submit a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the members in their region.

The task of obtaining signatures from 10% of the membership in your region is fraught with obstacles.
- members have to be USPA members as of June 1 of the election year. If a RD candidate gets a signature from someone that became a member in Aug of the election year that would not count as a valid signature.
- members may end up signing a petition when they do not live in the region the candidate is running for. That would be another invalid signature.
- the disparity of the population of each region makes it more difficult to get on the ballot in the regions with a greater population
- an incumbent RD does not have to obtain signatures to get on the ballot. This makes the 'getting on the ballot' part decidedly in favor of incumbents.

There is also a cost savings by eliminating the petitions. No one at HQ has to read the petition signatures and check whether or not the signature is valid.

Eliminating the signatures would put the non incumbent RD candidates at a equal position (hoops, hurdles whatever) that the incumbent RD candidates and ND candidates (incumbent or not) have. Anyone that wishes to get on the ballot would do the same thing: send in a letter of intent, fill out the form, send in a picture and $50.00.

The most often cited objection to this proposal is that there could be a plethora of candidates running in each region.
This perspective may be ameliorated by realizing that when the 22 candidate limit on ND candidates was lifted, there was not a bizillon candidates running for ND.

My recommendation is to vote YES on this proposal.


(This post was edited by MakeItHappen on Apr 19, 2011, 9:27 AM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by MakeItHappen () on Apr 19, 2011, 9:27 AM

Search for (options)