RevJim 0 #1 July 12, 2003 People, it's all over, as far as I know. There's the dead horse, now go beat it some more. Anyway, now that it's safely in the past, I can reply with my feelings about what has happened, AGAIN. I am able to sum it up quite well by a simple cut and paste of my reply to a post on news:rec.skydiving Here it is: "Lord Phoenix" wrote> > > They were not blanket proxies. You selected either "Yes" or "No" to the > three major topics and signed it. No trust necessary. > OK, i'm calling bullshit on this one. They, as ALL proxies are, are in essence, blanket proxies. All the proxie does, validly and legally, is represent a body at a meeting, to establish a quorum in this instance. Nothing else written on the proxy makes a damn bit of difference. The person named as proxy still votes their own way, regardless of what it says on the proxy. If the yes/no votes on a proxy were actually counted, it would no longer be a proxy, but instead be a mail ballot, which is prohibited in this instance (I think). Even if the yes/no WERE counted, it doesn't end there. After voting on these items, the voting could switch to members present, in person, instead of total. Those in person could choose to rescind the previous vote. Hell, they could have elected to bring a motion and vote to remove the entire BOD, and place themselves in charge, for life. Proxy voting, in most cases, can be a very bad thing. 3 years needed? If it takes the first year to figure out how things work, maybe you should actually attend a few meetings before sticking your neck out and running. Ya know, to figure out how things work before you actually have to do something. Earlier elections? Could go either way, and I think would make little to no difference in voter turnout. Election committee? Sure get rid of it. Too bad you bundled it with the RD petition requirement. The same ND that pushes for more people on the ballot in the RD races (so no-one gets elected with less than 50 votes) is the same one who said she believes that a true vote tally, showing everyone who got a vote in a RD race, write ins included, was a waste of HQ's time. So, which is it? Flooding the ballot is good, or a waste of time recording all those 1, 2, or 9 vote getters? Personally, I hate the fact that the BOD wasted a bunch of money again, on an issue the membership turned down once before (by not reaching a quorum). The issue is dead, for a second time now. Leave it alone. Now, about dropping the GM program....It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #2 July 12, 2003 Today, there is a minimal number of signatures to get on the ballot. It seems like that is a good idea. A person should be able to muster a small amount of support. If they cannot, then maybe they are either not worth supporting. If not enough membership agrees with supporting someone, then they are not representing the membership. Another reason is that you have to get out and work for the signatures. A minimal effort. If they can't do that, then they aren't going to do much else either. What do you think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #3 July 12, 2003 I am in complete and total agreement with you Bill. This is why I ended up not assigning my proxy to anyone. 1st, I didn't wat these items changed and 2nd, I had no idea what other items might have gotten changed in the presence of a quorum. The lowest recordedvoter turnout happened to be from my region. I voted, but not for Goswitz, so my vote didn't show up at all. 43 (I think) votes? C'mon people. There is a serious problem with that. I'll be out pounding the tarmac this year, and even more so next year, getting to know the people from this region, and eventually collecting signatures for my ballot. It's time for some changes, and we need more fun jumpers to step up and take responsibility.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #4 July 12, 2003 QuoteI'll be out pounding the tarmac this year, and even more so next year, getting to know the people from this region, and eventually collecting signatures for my ballot. I think that there is two parts to being a good director because there are two sources of issues. One source is from the inside, the jumpers. Getting out and getting to know people is a great idea and I am glad you are doing this. It will really help. There are huge numbers of items - safety, airport access, training. The second is the outside. The perception of people outside the sport. People in town, businesses, airport authorities. We must keep a healthy relationship with communities. We have a great rapport with the city in Z-hills. All parties suffer when there is a bad relationship. Try to find out from current directors are addressing with the FAA, lawmakers, etc. I have email discussions with them and have found them very open if you approach them with a spirit of partnership. There is a lot of stuff that they deal with that we never hear about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #5 July 12, 2003 I also have great email conversations with some members of our BOD, and yet there are others that flat out refuse to answer my emails. If I cut and pasted all the emails I have that start "This is for your eyes, please do not post in a public forum" and posted them as one post, you would be reading for close to a week, if not more. Many people do not understand what goes on on the BOD. What's worse though, is that it seems many do not care either.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #6 July 12, 2003 QuoteI also have great email conversations with some members of our BOD, and yet there are others that flat out refuse to answer my emails. That is all you can do. I know exactly what you mean. Some of it is "baggage" problems. Sometimes, the manner that people respond to us is tempered by their past experiences. Trust is harder to earn from those people. Do what you can with who you can. We are not the only people who contact them. I know that there is a lot of tension surrounding some issues. Taking the approach of "attack first" has caused a lot of these problems. I think that I would get tired of it too, if I was in their position. Good social skills can be a lot more productive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
