Should the USPA Board be required to vote by name?

[DSE 3]

Quote

For the most part, BOD votes are pretty routine stuff. Every once in a while there is an issue that is divisive or controversial. I think all votes should be done by name, that lets the people who elect their representatives know if the BOD member is representing or pretending.

The "secret ballot" should be a big red flag as to BOD members not wanting own up to their vote.

top

Thoughts on those that vote, and then have later have their vote changed to 'Abstain' for reasons of not wanting to be the only opposing vote on an otherwise unanimous issue?

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Spot I realize your question was directed at topdocker, however I think he believes that votes should be by name and your post just furthers justification for the same.

I am curious if anyone would actually be willing to defend opposition. I have a feeling the no votes are just trolls or people that realize there is no legitimate counter-argument.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Spot I realize your question was directed at topdocker, however I think he believes that votes should be by name and your post just furthers justification for the same.

I am curious if anyone would actually be willing to defend opposition. I have a feeling the no votes are just trolls or people that realize there is no legitimate counter-argument.

I can see the counter argument, that it is a pain in the ass to record votes on routine matters when they are unanimous or nearly so. Board members can request that a vote be by name (which is then voted on), and any Board member can make their vote by name at any time.

If you really want to know how your RD or a ND voted, go to a BOD meeting.

top

Jump more, post less!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

If you really want to know how your RD or a ND voted, go to a BOD meeting

First of all not everyone can afford to go or have the time to go, how about instead that kind of lame ass attitude, USPA record the votes openly by name... or better yet, maybe instead of wasting a shit load of members money on a goddamn PR firm for fluffy feel good media stories.... how about we spend a small amount on setting a live webcam during the meeting and then any member who wishes to attend via the internet could do so. It would seem that a few would rather 1. waste our due monies on stupid shit and then hide behind closed doors on their votes. Then we have the issue of HQ not disclosing staff rates of pay to BOD or members. Everything should be in the open and for all to see!

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

I can see the counter argument, that it is a pain in the ass to record votes on routine matters when they are unanimous or nearly so. Board members can request that a vote be by name (which is then voted on), and any Board member can make their vote by name at any time.

If you really want to know how your RD or a ND voted, go to a BOD meeting.

That is really the only counter argument I see, and I get it, but I feel there could be an easily accomplished middle ground. Routine unanimous votes could not be bothered to be recorded, but when there is disputed issues the members of the association should be able to see who is voting for what, and being told to attend is unrealistic for most of us. I can also see where a secret ballot my be useful in some instances, such as voting where nationals are to be held as was brought to my attention, however it is used in other ways that are just plain copouts apparently. I believe the system needs some change and the common member does not have a clear picture of what exactly is taking place. We should demand more, and I think those who are truly "representing" us should support such change.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[airtwardo 6]

...how about we spend a small amount on setting a live webcam during the meeting and then any member who wishes to attend via the internet could do so. It would seem that a few would rather 1. waste our due monies on stupid shit and then hide behind closed doors on their votes. Then we have the issue of HQ not disclosing staff rates of pay to BOD or members. Everything should be in the open and for all to see!

Quote

There you go with that whole logic thing again!

I'm curious, does anyone know of another 'non-profit' that won't disclose to the members where & how exactly THEIR money is being spent...other than a TV 'church' ??

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

If you really want to know how your RD or a ND voted, go to a BOD meeting

First of all not everyone can afford to go or have the time to go, how about instead that kind of lame ass attitude, USPA record the votes openly by name... or better yet, maybe instead of wasting a shit load of members money on a goddamn PR firm for fluffy feel good media stories.... how about we spend a small amount on setting a live webcam during the meeting and then any member who wishes to attend via the internet could do so. It would seem that a few would rather 1. waste our due monies on stupid shit and then hide behind closed doors on their votes. Then we have the issue of HQ not disclosing staff rates of pay to BOD or members. Everything should be in the open and for all to see!

Geez, Strat, you might want to switch to decaf.... I am trying to remind members that the meetings are held in various places around the country for the specific purpose of getting members to attend meetings that are in their area.

The meetings are not behind closed doors, they are open (except when personnel or disciplinary actions are discussed). And BOD members go out of their way to discuss issues with interested parties before the meetings.

I never saw it as an issue knowing what individual staff members were paid.

Webcam has been discussed, but I think it was tabled due to cost and technical issues. (its not as simple as it sounds when you are using a host hotel).

Just trying to help....
top

Jump more, post less!

[DSE 3]

Quote

Webcam has been discussed, but I think it was tabled due to cost and technical issues. (its not as simple as it sounds when you are using a host hotel).

Just trying to help....
top

It's actually very, very easy, and I was streaming to select people during the MSP and Daytona meetings. Jan Meyer wanted to do this, but was shut down for whatever reason.
That said, it also would generate a shit-ton of emails during the meeting. During this last meeting, there were many hysterical emails coming in due to facebook postings and pleadings. One can only imagine the traffic if there was a live webcam.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

I wonder why it was shut down exactly?

As far as emails go I don't know, because I have never even attended a meeting myself, but how would they be disruptive to the meeting? It's not like the board has to respond to emails during the meeting is it?

I would think a streaming of the meeting would be awesome and may be the easiest way to go.

Cost my ass. Spot you are knowledgeable about that type of thing. I wouldn't think there is much cost at all.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[airtwardo 6]

I never saw it as an issue knowing what individual staff members were paid.

Quote

I think it's a rather important issue Top...lets be honest here, although not as prevalent as in times past - the 'good ole boy' network is still somewhat ingrained in the organization.

We as the $upporting members not only have the right to know what someone is being paid as a staff member but also what exactly their qualifications are to hold that position.

Let's say 'for example' I hold a high office within the organization and my SO needs a job...

Should the general membership be made aware of that 'relationship' or is it none of their business...how about if said SO has no education or experience in the position, or is receiving a salary above any precious position ever held, or no basic performance parameter measurements are in place or being observed...is something like THAT no one's business?

Far be it for ME to imply this 'has' happened, or 'is' happening, just that it seems rather strange as a dues paying member $upporting a non profit organization I'm not in any way, shape or form 'allowed' to know if the people working FOR ME are qualified for the position or what I'm paying them - - so no safeguards are in place to insure it ISN'T/CAN'T happen...just sayin'


As a 'stockholder' in a corporation I'd have to question the reason I'm not allowed 'by design' to know where, how & why the people I voted for, are spending the money I'm giving them.

It's only reasonable to ask if it's in 'their' best interest or 'mine'!

It's not that I don't 'trust' them, but friends are friends & business is business.

I was taught that in a busine$$ environment - don't trust anybody.

Tellng me you're not screwin' me is easy...SHOWING it is not!

Having run several small businesses I see a real problem there...or is it just me??

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[topdocker 0]

Quote

I wonder why it was shut down exactly?

As far as emails go I don't know, because I have never even attended a meeting myself, but how would they be disruptive to the meeting? It's not like the board has to respond to emails during the meeting is it?

I would think a streaming of the meeting would be awesome and may be the easiest way to go.

Cost my ass. Spot you are knowledgeable about that type of thing. I wouldn't think there is much cost at all.

There is the cost of putting a mike on everyone, making sure everyone can be seen and heard even audience members who address the BOD, and someone sitting there making sure the webcast works.

Also, the meetings are "open" to members and interested parties, but not "public." I think it will have to be put into the bylaws about webcasting meetings and a budget approved before it can be done.

For each committee, do we run a separate webcast, even for concurrent meetings? Or do we just rely on the committee report out?

I would love to see a webcast of a meeting, since I am one of those people that flew out to meetings even though I wasn't on the board. Eventually, I would like to see the BOD meet virtually rather than physically. Huge savings for everyone involved and they could happen more often.

top

Jump more, post less!

[Andy9o8 0]

There is no legitimate reason not to record votes by member every time. It's just not that cumbersome. If you make an exception for "routine" matters, then who gets to define what is and is not "routine"? What's routine and ministerial to me may be damned important to you. That aside, anything other than a single standard invites abuse, or even worse, the appearance of abuse. If a vote on routine stuff is truly unanimous, fine, say so. But if there are any nays or abstentions, those should be recorded by name. Would you tolerate your elected state or federal legislators doing it any other way?

With all due respect, I agree that it's lame to say that people can attend meetings. And though I'm all in favor of web-camming the meetings, that's not an adequate substitute for recording votes, either. Sorry, but some constituents have lives and just don't have the time or opportunity to watch the meetings; but that doesn't diminish their entitlement to the information.

This is really a no-brainer. Record the damn votes, all of them, and let's get on with it.

[DanG 1]

Quote

We as the $upporting members not only have the right to know what someone is being paid as a staff member but also what exactly their qualifications are to hold that position.

Really? So if I own Ford stock I have the right to know what every guy on the plant floor gets paid in salary and benefits? It doesn't work that way. Nor do I have the right to review the qualifications and salary history (!) of every employee. Get real.

- Dan G

[DSE 3]

Quote

Nor do I have the right to review the qualifications and salary history (!) of every employee. Get real.

Actually...you do.

And in the exceptionally small microcosm of skydiving, we as members do have a right (and perhaps responsibility) to question hires if it appears that they are not cost-effective nor qualified for the job.

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

Quote

There is no legitimate reason not to record votes by member every time. It's just not that cumbersome. If you make an exception for "routine" matters, then who gets to define what is and is not "routine"? What's routine and ministerial to me may be damned important to you. That aside, anything other than a single standard invites abuse, or even worse, the appearance of abuse. If a vote on routine stuff is truly unanimous, fine, say so. But if there are any nays or abstentions, those should be recorded by name. Would you tolerate your elected state or federal legislators doing it any other way?

With all due respect, I agree that it's lame to say that people can attend meetings. And though I'm all in favor of web-camming the meetings, that's not an adequate substitute for recording votes, either. Sorry, but some constituents have lives and just don't have the time or opportunity to watch the meetings; but that doesn't diminish their entitlement to the information.

This is really a no-brainer. Record the damn votes, all of them, and let's get on with it.

+1

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[DanG 1]

Quote

Actually...you do.

And in the exceptionally small microcosm of skydiving, we as members do have a right (and perhaps responsibility) to question hires if it appears that they are not cost-effective nor qualified for the job.

Actually, I don't. You're making stuff up.

Sure, you can question new hires all you want. That's completely different from having access to the personnel records of staff members.

- Dan G

[EFS4LIFE 0]

I think a new thread should be started in regards to salaries and qualifications and such.

This thread is supposed to be about voting by name and secret ballots.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

We as the $upporting members not only have the right to know what someone is being paid as a staff member but also what exactly their qualifications are to hold that position.

Really? So if I own Ford stock I have the right to know what every guy on the plant floor gets paid in salary and benefits? It doesn't work that way. Nor do I have the right to review the qualifications and salary history (!) of every employee. Get real.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/us-ford-idUSBRE82T1AJ20120330

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Entry_Level_Wage_Structure.pdf


Took me 5 seconds to get a pretty good idea, and yes a stockholder can request such information, unless something drastic has changed in the past few years.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[DanG 1]

Quote

Took me 5 seconds to get a pretty good idea, and yes a stockholder can request such information, unless something drastic has changed in the past few years.

Well, anyone can request anything.

There's a big difference between disclosing CEO pay (which I have no problem with), and disclosing the pay of regular employees. The "Entry-Level Wage Structure" you posted talks in general terms about what a typical employee makes. Try to show up at a Ford plant and ask to see the personell file of Joe Schmoe the riveter and see how far you get. That's what you're asking for, and it's patently ridiculous.

- Dan G

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Or not.

Hijack away

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[NSEMN8R 0]

While we're off the subject.. is this about that wingsuit rating thing? If so, how did it end up? Do we have new rules coming?

[topdocker 0]

Quote

While we're off the subject.. is this about that wingsuit rating thing? If so, how did it end up? Do we have new rules coming?

Finishing the thread hijack...

The WSI rating failed to pass the BOD.

top

Jump more, post less!

[DanG 1]

Quote

Or not.

Hijack away

Welcome to the internet.

BTW, I just voted NO in your silly poll.

Of course USPA directors should be required to vote by name. Why do you need a poll for that? The only people voting NO are doing it because the poll is dumb. dropzone.com is not USPA. Have you tried putting your comments on the USPA Facebook page, which is actually related to USPA?

- Dan G

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

Quote

The WSI rating failed to pass the BOD.

Correction. It failed TWICE.

I am an asshole, but I am honest

[EFS4LIFE 0]

Quote

Quote

Welcome to the internet.

BTW, I just voted NO in your silly poll.

Of course USPA directors should be required to vote by name. Why do you need a poll for that? The only people voting NO are doing it because the poll is dumb. dropzone.com is not USPA. Have you tried putting your comments on the USPA Facebook page, which is actually related to USPA?

Have you actually read the thread? See post #23. Of course I have contacted the USPA. Sorry, cant really put a poll on their website or Facebook page. Once again the Chairman of the C&B Committee has agreed to bring the discussion to the committee and I am hoping this poll would kind of show the support of my view. At least I am trying to do something about it and not just being a fuckstick

I am an asshole, but I am honest