USPA Solo Challenge

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Some of us are concerned members of USPA I welcome Jan here.

[DanG 1]

I never said she wasn't welcome. I'm a concerned member as well, but my concerns include the potential actions of the Board as well as of HQ.

There is a right way and a wrong way of dealing with problems. I'm just trying to find out which she has decided to use.

- Dan G

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Bringing it here is ok by me. How else are we going to find out anything?

[DanG 1]

I don't have a problem bringing it here. I have a problem bringing it here FIRST. If she contacted Ed and he refused to address her concerns, then by all means shout an alarm. If she bypassed proper protocol and went public with allegations of HQ impropriety without basis, then she's guilty of the same machinations she accuses other members of the Board of committing.

My question hasn't been answered yet, so I don't know what the real story is.

- Dan G

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Why is this discussion between a USPA Board member and the Executive Director occuring on dropzone.com and not in private?

If you peruse my OP you will see that I asked members what they thought.
Granted the ED is a member, but the questions were not specifically directed at the ED.
The ED entered into the conversation on his own volition, which is a good thing IMHO, and probably in response to page 15 of Dec Parachutist mag.
If you did not know, the ED is one of the people that speak for USPA. No Director can speak as the official voice of USPA, unless that person is the President.
The way your question is posed, suggests that you prefer USPA go off into a super secret room to determine the destiny of USPA and then come out and tell the membership 'this is the way it's going to be'.
Most of the members I talk to ask 'hey-why don't you ask us about this stuff ahead of time and get our input?' They don't want the super-secret meetings and decisions coming down from the mountain.

Apparently, in this particular issue, there are things that HQ has implemented that BOD members were not aware of.
In fact, I did not even know I was missing information until this thread.
That should tell you something there too.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I don't have a problem bringing it here. I have a problem bringing it here FIRST. If she contacted Ed and he refused to address her concerns, then by all means shout an alarm. If she bypassed proper protocol and went public with allegations of HQ impropriety without basis, then she's guilty of the same machinations she accuses other members of the Board of committing.

My question hasn't been answered yet, so I don't know what the real story is.

I tried bringing my concerns to HQ with no response. I don't know why that was. In fairness, I'll tell you that HQ (Ed) and I are trying to figure out where my emails go when they get there.

So, there. I tried to talk to HQ and it failed. Thanks, Jan, for bringing it back to my attention.

I don't want this to be a private matter.

I want very little of USPA's actions to be private matters.

I want stuff like this to be totally transparent. Because if I'd heard about this before it became fact, I'd have screamed then.

USPA is supposed to be US, not THEM against US.

Put it all out in the open as soon as possible.

Turn it around. Why doesn't USPA have a place of its own where we can discuss these things before they become firestorms? Why didn't USPA solicit comment from the membership before enacting this? Even the FAA has to give the public a chance to comment before they railroad us. Why shouldn't we expect the same from USPA?

USPA is supposed to be working on our behalf. We shouldn't be begging to be included.

[DanG 1]

Although you didn't answer my question directly, I appreciate the response. It appears that you did not bring your concerns up to Ed (the ED) prior to bringing it to the public. If you didn't like the way the issue was handled, then by all means bring it to the membership, but you obviously didn't even try to deal with the issue before coming here. I think that is improper.

I also agree that the Solo Challenge concept may not be a good idea, but I think it is taking an unjustified leap to assume (as some have done) that there is anything but the best of intentions behind the program. If it is a flawed concept, work to improve it, or work to kill it. Don't go online and try to besmirch the integrity of your staff in public. That is not only ineffective, it's unprofessional as well.

I don't think that decisions at USPA need to be made in a Star Chamber, but neither do I think they need to be made by using dropzone.com as a bully pulpit as the first course of action. There is a middle ground. People who want to run effective organizations need to find that middle ground.

- Dan G

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Although you didn't answer my question directly, I appreciate the response. It appears that you did not bring your concerns up to Ed (the ED) prior to bringing it to the public. If you didn't like the way the issue was handled, then by all means bring it to the membership, but you obviously didn't even try to deal with the issue before coming here. I think that is improper.

I also agree that the Solo Challenge concept may not be a good idea, but I think it is taking an unjustified leap to assume (as some have done) that there is anything but the best of intentions behind the program. If it is a flawed concept, work to improve it, or work to kill it. Don't go online and try to besmirch the integrity of your staff in public. That is not only ineffective, it's unprofessional as well.

I don't think that decisions at USPA need to be made in a Star Chamber, but neither do I think they need to be made by using dropzone.com as a bully pulpit as the first course of action. There is a middle ground. People who want to run effective organizations need to find that middle ground.

What???
I don't even follow your logic.

"It appears that you did not bring your concerns up to Ed (the ED) prior to bringing it to the public. "
You know, I know we do not know each other, but let me tell you this.
I have been in skydiving since 1981.
Not once, did I ever have to run my question by someone for 'approval' for soliciting responses.
IOW, I ask people the Q. I don't ask someone else if it is ok for me to ask a Q on such-n-such.
I ask the Q.
If there are people or organizations that do not like the question asked, that is pretty much their problem, not mine.

What kind of logic are you following??
Are you a Borg?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Why doesn't USPA have a place of its own where we can discuss these things before they become firestorms?

I agree, as easy as it is to get a forum up and running it shouldn't be a problem. I will add though that I don't have a problem doing it right here.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't USPA have a place of its own where we can discuss these things before they become firestorms?

I agree, as easy as it is to get a forum up and running it shouldn't be a problem. I will add though that I don't have a problem doing it right here.

My thoughts are just a little bit different, but not terribly much so.

If USPA had a membership forum where USPA members could express themselves, that would be better than doing it on dropzone.com.

I would prefer that USPA business be discussed among the USPA members. It really doesn't concern anybody else. I would prefer that the directors and HQ should be in close contact with the membership through the forum and operate through consensus, not by secret action.

I would prefer to get the sense that my organization is actively trying to understand me and to represent me. Having a special place where we could go to talk amongst ourselves would help me feel that way.

But, in the absence of such a place, dropzone.com will suffice.

Still, the need to use another place says that we feel our organization is not adequately addressing our needs.

It says we have no home of our own.

And that is a shameful thing to have to say.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why doesn't USPA have a place of its own where we can discuss these things before they become firestorms?

I agree, as easy as it is to get a forum up and running it shouldn't be a problem. I will add though that I don't have a problem doing it right here.

My thoughts are just a little bit different, but not terribly much so.

If USPA had a membership forum where USPA members could express themselves, that would be better than doing it on dropzone.com.

I would prefer that USPA business be discussed among the USPA members. It really doesn't concern anybody else. I would prefer that the directors and HQ should be in close contact with the membership through the forum and operate through consensus, not by secret action.

I would prefer to get the sense that my organization is actively trying to understand me and to represent me. Having a special place where we could go to talk amongst ourselves would help me feel that way.

But, in the absence of such a place, dropzone.com will suffice.

Still, the need to use another place says that we feel our organization is not adequately addressing our needs.

It says we have no home of our own.

And that is a shameful thing to have to say.

We are in complete agreement

[DanG 1]

Let me try to explain. I don't see what you could possibly misunderstand about my position, but maybe I haven't made myself clear.

If you and I worked for the same organization, and I had a problem with something you did, how would you suggest I handle it? Give you a call and discuss the matter, or try to throw you under the bus on a public chat forum? Which would be the professional way of dealing with a disagreement? Which is more likely to get results?

Your OP was not really written as a request for information. Sure, you ended it with, "So what do you think about this," but if you were really just seeking information you wouldn't have laced it with your own inflammatory position. What you really wanted to do was show how messed up HQ is. From your OP (emphasis added):

Quote

This little sentence “These drop zones provide skydiving training beyond the first jump.” is an outright leverage technique to coerce DZs into buying into the ‘Solo Challenge’. This sentence strongly implies that the DZs without the TC designation do not provide training beyond the first jump. HQ has gone beyond what the BOD authorized.

That is not something I would expect to see from a sitting member of the BOD, especially one who didn't take the two minutes needed to call HQ and say, "Hey, what's up with that wording?" You were trying to make someone out to be a bad guy from the get go. Don't even pretend that all you wanted was some member input. I call bullshit on that. If you had a problem with HQ, you use your position on the BOD and get it fixed. If you wanted information from the members, ask them what they think without jumping to a conclusion before anyone responds.

I never said you needed to get "approval" to do anything. You are reflecting your own biases there. What I said was you should have the common courtesy of contacting people before trying to screw them publicly.

I don't have a personal dog in this fight, it just pisses me off that the people who are supposed to be running my membership organization can't pick up a telephone before starting a flame-fest on dropzone.com.

And finally,

Quote

Not once, did I ever have to run my question by someone for 'approval' for soliciting responses.
IOW, I ask people the Q. I don't ask someone else if it is ok for me to ask a Q on such-n-such.
I ask the Q.
If there are people or organizations that do not like the question asked, that is pretty much their problem, not mine.

Don't you think you might be more effective if you tried working with people instead of always working against them? I don't know what your beef is with the other people at USPA, but it's clear that you can't deal with anyone without assuming they are up to no good. Not everything is a conspiracy. Why do you even think people at HQ care if DZ's sign up for the Solo Challenge? What's the motive behind this nefarious activity? Don't you think they have enough work as it is? Get real.

- Dan G

[riggerpaul 1]

The way I see it, the building is on fire.

Now is not the time to quietly find the manager and say "I think your building is on fire".

Now is the time to raise alarms.

This thing has gotten way too far already. It has been poorly presented by HQ, and when we see what is really happening, there are some big objections.

USPA is supposed to be an organization that serves the needs of the membership.

Instead, we have an organization that serves the needs of the organization, whether or not that serves the needs of the membership.

That's the tail wagging the dog.

[DanG 1]

I guess I just don't see the fire. All I see is a little smoke coming from a trashcan. Jan chose to call the fire department and the evening news, and accuse the manager of arson instead of throwing some water in the trashcan.

The cards are voluntary, if the students don't want to fill them out, they won't. There is an opt-out link on the e-mail. If you're concerned with data mining of selling the names to third parties, I think that is a legitimate concern and should be addressed, but I don't think that question has even been asked.

The statement in the magazine is inaccurate, I agree. I would be willing to bet that the USPA Board can get that changed in about five minutes with a phone call. Of course, it creates more drama to go on dropzone.com and yell fire.

- Dan G

[CSpenceFLY 1]

So, you have no problem with what was sold to the board not being the whole deal? You should notice that I have asked the same question three times and it has not been addressed. I feel this is standard practice.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I guess I just don't see the fire. All I see is a little smoke coming from a trashcan. Jan chose to call the fire department and the evening news, and accuse the manager of arson instead of throwing some water in the trashcan.

The cards are voluntary, if the students don't want to fill them out, they won't. There is an opt-out link on the e-mail. If you're concerned with data mining of selling the names to third parties, I think that is a legitimate concern and should be addressed, but I don't think that question has even been asked.

The statement in the magazine is inaccurate, I agree. I would be willing to bet that the USPA Board can get that changed in about five minutes with a phone call. Of course, it creates more drama to go on dropzone.com and yell fire.

At the risk of repeating myself, I spoke to my RD shortly after I saw the October magazine. He didn't share my concern.

You say you don't think the question about data-mining is being asked. I am asking it here. I am doing it here because my efforts to do it though what you might call normal channels have been unsuccessful.

I sent email to HQ and got no response. When HQ saw my posts, they invited me to contact them again. I did, and again got no response. Finally, I sent a PM and got a response. They told me that my email had gone into a SPAM folder. That's not the first time I've heard that response. By the way, I am a USPA Coach, and they have my email address on record. I receive the USPA Professional when it comes out.

(Ed Scott - I don't mean this last paragraph to be a continuing complaint. I intend only to tell what has happened so far. I know you are now trying to fix whatever is broken, and I appreciate your efforts on my behalf.)

[DanG 1]

Quote

So, you have no problem with what was sold to the board not being the whole deal? You should notice that I have asked the same question three times and it has not been addressed. I feel this is standard practice.

If you've asked the same question of me three times, I may have missed it. If you've asked it of USPA three times, then I agree that you deserve a response. If, on the other hand, you used dropzone.com to ask USPA instead of the USPA blog, website, MySpace page, e-mail, or telephone, then you should expect the lack of response that you received.

I never said I didn't have a problem with people misrepresenting things. The only evidence we've seen here that HQ misrepresented the program is a cut and paste from Jan. Up thread Ed Scott wrote a rather lengthy post that explains the program is fairly good detail. If that same level of detail were not given to the Board prior to a vote, then that is a problem. But it is problem both ways: HQ should have been more detailed, and the Board should have demanded more detail before voting.

- Dan G

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Yes, I asked the question of USPA here. Seeing as their com rep is active in the thread I thought it appropriate to ask the question here. I have also asked the question of why the board would vote on something as open ended as this and got a apm response in regards to that. Basically saying they once again tried to trust the HQ and got screwed again.(Not in those words).

You're right ,it is a problem on both sides. But since a few people have shown over and over again there is a trust problem I thick it is time for the full board to demand more in the way of facts from the EC and commities and stop voting on incomplete open ended things like this.

[Communications 0]

HQ appreciates, respects and encourages the kind of member participation that is going on here. It's great, and really exciting that people are getting involved!

For now, this topic has so many splinters that it is beyond our time capabilities to respond to each one in depth. If I have it right, the major issues are:

1. the way in which HQ implemented the Solo Challenge


2. motives of HQ employees in usurping the BOD


3. the difficulty in communication with USPA


4. privacy concerns with USPA HQ's e-mail communications approach

#1 -HQ believes that we implemented the program as it was presented to the BOD at the last board meeting. (CSpenceFLY – We thought our original post answered your question; we weren’t ignoring it.) If there were missteps - real or perceived - they were not done with malicious or insidious intent towards anyone or for any purpose.

This seques into #2: USPA HQ staff all work here because we are skydivers who want to help skydiving. If our purpose was to gain power, money and prestige, well, we've all chosen the wrong careers. You don't work for a non-profit membership assocation to get any of those things.

#3 - We have a lot of online capabilities that we didn't have when the board last met, and are really looking forward to helping distribute information in new and more effective ways. Several people have expressed frustration at getting involved in the "process", and why doesn't USPA provide methods for discussion. The truth is that we've been trying to get member participation, with frankly dismal results.

We have a blog, with one post in particular - Why? - specifically designed to get member questions. As you can see, there really wasn't much of a response, and certainly not the barrage that we were bracing for. Granted, if you don't visit the USPA website, read Parachutist, open the e-newsletters (which go to instructors, S&TAs, DZOs and BOD members), call headquarters, link up with USPA on MySpace or LinkedIn or talk to your directors, you never would have known the blog existed.

Jan is absolutely correct, that page 15 blurb in the December Parachutist signifies a lot. It reads, by the way:

Quote

USPA Expands Online Communications

USPA now has several online sites in addition to its official website. On MySpace, www.myspace.com/_USPA, people can be USPA’s “friend,” get special bulletins and interact with other USPA friends. At the USPA Members LinkedIn group, members can discuss career-related issues and network with other professionals who also skydive. The USPA Blog, www.skydiveuspa.wordpress.com, is the place for informal news, discussions about current skydiving news and events, and fun posts from USPA staff members. At USPA’s YouTube video channel, www.youtube.com/user/skydiveuspa, all USPA videos are organized in one convenient spot, and members can comment on and rate their favorites. These sites can also be found on USPA’s “Community” page at www.uspa.org.

All activities are organized around the goal of increasing communication channels between USPA staff and members. If there is a social networking site or service that USPA should be using, let us know by e-mailing [email protected].

We do not currently have forums on the USPA website because there is no staff member with the time required to moderate. Dropzone.com does a fantastic job of fostering a (mostly ) ) on-topic, respectful community, but that takes hours of dedicated moderator work. We respect dz.com moderators an immense amount, but we simply do not have the time it takes to do it on a daily basis. The blog and other online communications stretch the workload as-is, so we've decided to focus on those before starting anything else, at least for the time being. USPA welcomes any comments and thoughts. While we can’t address every comment about USPA on dropzone.com, we will respond to every PM or call directly to USPA. (riggerpaul – we have our IT person working on the issue with your e-mail getting stuck in SPAM.)

#4 - ConstantContact is a well respected company in the e-mail marketing world and link tracking is an industry accepted practice in the 21st century. E-mails are set to be delivered to the highest level a client allows - if your setting is such that you only allow text e-mails, you will receive a text-only version. All contact lists are cleared after use, and the only data used is first name, last name, company (for the DZO Streamline), and e-mail address - all of which is highly unusual for a marketing project. Most companies store lists for some time to track long-term clicks and views. You could actually argue that this is what USPA should be doing. In any case, we never sell member (or non-member, in the case of the Solo Challenge) e-mail addresses to anyone, for any reason, and chose ConstantContact because they are well respected in the marketing/communications industry for maintaining very high privacy standards.

Lara Kjeldsen
[email protected]

edited to add hyperlinks

www.uspa.org

Read the USPA blog!

[pilotdave 0]

Bet you miss answering questions about the Neptune now, don't ya?!

Nice job though... don't know who is responsible, but USPA is really putting in the effort here. I'll give you all the credit.

Dave

[davepend 0]

Quote

If I have it right, the major issues are:

1. the way in which HQ implemented the Solo Challenge


2. motives of HQ employees in usurping the BOD


3. the difficulty in communication with USPA


4. privacy concerns with USPA HQ's e-mail communications approach

The item that struck me as most offensive was (which I would add as point five):

5. The "TC" listing in Parachutist (and USPA.com?) that implies (or would likely be inferred by the reader) that those DZs without a "TC" next to their name do not encourage students or offer training beyond the first jump.

This may not be the intent of the "TC" listing, but it's definitely what people will assume when they see it.

-dp

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

While we can’t address every comment about USPA on dropzone.com, we will respond to every PM or call directly to USPA.

I am a bit pressed for time so this is all I'm responding to. I think this is what many including myself have a problem with. Why do most communication have to be private and or behind closed doors? It makes no sense to me. Of all the communications I have had with BOD members most have been by PM with the addition of being asked either not to reveal either content or who responded to me. I don't get it.

Quote

If there is a social networking site or service that USPA should be using, let us know by e-mailing [email protected].

Why not use Dropzone.com? This probably the single largest gathering on skydivers on the internet.If nothing else mirror the content from the USPA that you are looking for input on and provide a link.

[Thanatos340 1]

Members of the BOD and especially the executive committee have expresses extreme distain for this site and the people that post here. (Atleast that is what I was told by people that attended the BOD meeting in Orlando told me). I doubt they would support using this medium for communications.

I am very glad to see the USPA posting here (and seeing representatives at Skyfest). Communication and visibility should go a long way in restoring the general memberships faith in their organization.

[skydived19006 4]

Quote

The DZ could see trouble due to sharing said info without the person's consent (from both the individual and the government), and the USPA is violating the federal CAN-SPAM Act by sending unsolicited email without both an opt-out method and the clear identification of their mailing address and contact info.



Not cool.

I've been "participating", but "I" don't share anyone's information. I'll ask our tandem students if they're interested in going beyond the tandem, etc. Then hand the card to the student, ask them if they'd be interested in receiving an email from the USPA, if so, fill out the card. I do qualify it with "they will not sell your information, or SPAM you, hopefully I'm not lying to them with that statement!

My problem tends to be to remember to send the cards off to the USPA.

Now, if they pose "requirements" that I don't like, I'll drop the "TC" like a used condom. I don't really give a shit.

Martin
Air Capital Drop Zone

Experience is what you get when you thought you were going to get something else.

AC DZ

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Members of the BOD and especially the executive committee have expresses extreme distain for this site and the people that post here. (Atleast that is what I was told by people that attended the BOD meeting in Orlando told me). I doubt they would support using this medium for communications.

I am very glad to see the USPA posting here (and seeing representatives at Skyfest). Communication and visibility should go a long way in restoring the general memberships faith in their organization.

You are correct. I was there. It was almost like Mr. Worth was trying to get a response out of us. I say that because he felt the need to make one smartass comment more then once.

I never had an issue with BJ Worth up to that moment but I would not piss on him if he was on fire now.