USPA - Jan Meyer Impeachment??

[Thanatos340 1]

There was NO FINAL Ruling.

The USPA Settled after that. The Discovery Process was never even completed to the best of my knowladge.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

There was NO FINAL Ruling.

The USPA Settled after that. The Discovery Process was never even completed to the best of my knowladge.

So, okay. When they settled...THAT's the paper the we'd all like to see...but is being kept out of our reach.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[billvon 2,772]

>Anyone still think that the only reason we had to settle were Jans
>Actions and that she alone should pay for the Loss?

No one thinks that. She was ONE of the reasons that Skyride won the suit.

[marks 0]

Quote

>Anyone still think that the only reason we had to settle were Jans
>Actions and that she alone should pay for the Loss?

No one thinks that. She was ONE of the reasons that Skyride won the suit.

but you also have to realize, this has been her view for years, and quite possibly the reason we voted her back into office.

[billvon 2,772]

>this has been her view for years . . .

What was her view? That Skyride was bad? That's fine, and I think it's a sentiment shared by many. If she took actions that helped limit the bad effects of Skyride, great. If she took actions that helped Skyride obtain a beneficial settlement, not so great. (As has been pointed out, Skyride didn't win the suit, but obtained a settlement that was very much in their favor.)

Her intentions were likely good, but I think it's better to have people who produce good results.

[pilotdave 0]

I dunno... I kinda like her results. Informing skydivers about skyride. She's produced great results at that.

It might be true that she helped skyride's lawsuit, but I still don't think that's why they want to get rid of her. I don't think anybody at USPA saw that lawsuit coming, definitely not before they kicked skyride out. USPA, in general, put themselves in a bad position and had to pay for it. Still glad they did though! For just a little while, the USPA did the right thing.

After the USPA got sued, did jan do anything that deserves an impeachment? Guess we'll have to wait and see...

Dave

[CSpenceFLY 1]

And if everything would have gone our way everyone would be patting her on the back saying good job. It is wrong to turn on her because everything didn't go our way especially since there is evidence that others were involved in the reason it didn't work out and our board didn't even have a voice in whether or not to settle.

[lauraliscious 0]

Thanks for posting all that! I just printed it all out, double sided and it's a lot of paper! Good thing I like to read, I have it cut out for me in this case. Going home for the night to get me some lawsuit edumacation.....

Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091

[billvon 2,772]

> And if everything would have gone our way everyone would be
> patting her on the back saying good job.

I wouldn't. I warned her when she first posted her parody that it might backfire on her. If it had worked out for USPA, that wouldn't have made it a better decision on her part.

[DSE 5]

Quote

And if everything would have gone our way everyone would be patting her on the back saying good job. It is wrong to turn on her because everything didn't go our way especially since there is evidence that others were involved in the reason it didn't work out and our board didn't even have a voice in whether or not to settle.

I don't think that's the point.
You're right, Jan deserves a pat on the back no matter what, because not only has she raised the issue of Skyride to a very loud level from which they'll struggle to recover, but she's also done one helluva lot for the community.

Still yet,"The road to hell is paved with good intentions..."

From an exclusively organizational viewpoint, and no other viewpoint (so if you've never sat on a corporate board, you just might not comprehend this), there is no way a policy-making body to have a rogue member that is visible to the general public without some form of punitive discussion.
On the whole, it weakens the entire structure. And therein lies (IMO) the only point that matters.

If Jan is removed from the board (and there is a looming possibility that she won't be) then there is next the possibility of the board censuring her.
Or, they might vote that she be recused from voting, which has the same effect as being removed. Or, it may turn into a political mess of "yelling" in an orderly fashion.
Should the board be mired in a morass of mess for the next year? Or should they be making policy and working on *real* issues?

That said, no matter what, Jan is in a power position to be elected again, IMO, and she hopefully will once more seek office. She cannot be banned from seeking public office within the USPA.

In either scenario...Jan effectively comes out on top, I believe. I'd sure vote for her.
I guess I prefer to see it from a purely political perspective rather than an "Oh my god, they're beating down my friend."
Whether it's recognized or not, Jan has just been handed a big stick. Reference the recent change in the agenda as one small example of that big stick.

[rushmc 18]

Can somebody please explain to me how, information that is supposed to be secret, be used in an open impeachment meeting, to impeach a memeber?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[CSpenceFLY 1]

It will probably not be an open meeting.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It will probably not be an open meeting.

So, you are saying they will impeach a legally elected member in a secret meeting and keep the (impeachment) meeting minutes secret while using secret (or at least withheld) information from secret setttlement from a law suit that cost the USPA members an unknown settlement?

Ok, I can live with that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

So, you are saying they will impeach a legally elected member in a secret meeting and keep the (impeachment) meeting minutes secret while using secret (or at least withheld) information from secret setttlement from a law suit that cost the USPA members an unknown settlement?

Ok, I can live with that

Yep. From past history, this will probably be a "closed" meeting where the people you elected will discuss and come to a conclusion......cause you elected them right?

[itllclear 1]

Quote

Yep. From past history, this will probably be a "closed" meeting where the people you elected will discuss and come to a conclusion......cause you elected them right?

Disciplinary actions are ordinarily handled in a closed session as provided in the Governance Manual.

USPA GOVERNANCE MANUAL
1-2.3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
B. Board meetings
4. Board meetings will be open to all USPA members unless otherwise directed by the president, with the concurrence of the board. Closed board meetings will be open to only members of the board, plus any other individuals specifically invited by the presiding chair of the meeting to attend that particular closed session. Closed sessions during board meetings are primarily conducted in cases where personalities are being discussed, such as disciplinary actions.

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[shermanator 4]

Quote

>

that Skyride won the suit.

I thought they settled. How is that winning? This is merely USPA saying, "ok, we give in."

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[DSE 5]

You don't get it.
There are two factions here:
Those that say "USPA LOST!"
Those that say "Skyride WON!"

Neither faction understands that settlement is reached because both parties are satisfied with agreements that allow them to get on with their business without incurring additional costs. Such agreements are typically of mutual benefit. Otherwise, if Skyride *really* wanted the compensation they'd asked for in their initial complaint, they never would have settled. If USPA was 100% confident in their position, it's unlikely they would have settled.
Both sides won, or both sides lost.
I hope that's settled.

[shermanator 4]

Thank you. I like the way you stated that. so very true.

CLICK HERE! new blog posted 9/21/08
CSA #720

[billvon 2,772]

>How is that winning? This is merely USPA saying, "ok, we give in."

You are correct; they settled, and USPA apologized. My error.

[skydived19006 4]

I'll admit that I have not taken the time to read the whole document. But from what I see here, it's my opinion that there should be agenda items for "the removal for just cause" Glen Bangs, Lee S., and Larry Hill.

Just FYI, I asked a couple of Regional Directors if they would add an item to the agenda to discuss the elimination of the Group Member program.

Martin

Quote

This is just one example from the judges ruling (This is a small excerpt from the ruling, Everyone should read the entire ruling)..

Defendant = USPA,
Plaintiff = Skyride/ASC

From Page 12 of the Ruling:

Quote

Specifically, on August 6, 2005, the president of the executive committee of the USPA, who was also the manager of a drop zone that competed with Plaintiffs in the Philadelphia area, visited Plaintiffs' facility in Perkasie, Pennsylvania and advised the employees of the recent USPA action and encouraged them to leave their positions to take positions with competitors.(3)

Additionally, the southern regional director of the USPA manages a drop zone in Tennessee, which is a Group Member of the USPA. Prior to the membership termination notice received by ASC, Plaintiffs were in negotiations with an airport for a drop zone location that would have been in commercial proximity to the drop zone managed by the southern regional director .
After the issuance of the August 1, 2005 letter to ASC, Plaintiffs allege that the executive director of the USPA contacted officials at the airport and informed them of the action taken against Plaintiffs . Perceiving it to be a reflection upon the safety and training procedures utilized by Plaintiffs, the self-dealing (count six), breach of a legal duty (count seven), breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing (count eight), as well as a claim for injunctive relief (count nine). Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $10,000,000.

(3) Plaintiffs also submit that a USPA national director from Arizona directed his
employees to directly contact Plaintiffs' employees and subcontractors in an effort to
solicit them to leave the employment and business relationships of Plaintiffs and join his drop zone .

Page 23 The judge states his opinions on the claims:

Quote

B. State Law Claims
1. Tortious Interference
In count four, Plaintiffs contend that the USPA tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' business relationships . Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the USPA (1) persuaded individuals to break off contract negotiations with Plaintiffs for a new drop zone location at a Tennessee airport ; (2) made public statements to third parties not to enter business relationships with Plaintiffs ; and (3) utilized wrongful means to solicit Plaintiffs' employees .
Under Georgia law, to state a claim for interference with business relations, a plaintiff must allege facts which, if proven, will show that a defendant "(i) acted improperly and without privilege ; (2) purposely and with malice with the intent to injure ; (3) induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue a business relationship with the plaintiff ; and (4) for which the plaintiff suffered some financial injury." St. Mary's Hosp .
of Athens, Inc . v . Radiology Prof'I Corp., 205 Ga. App. 121,124, 421 S .E .2d
731, 734 (1992).
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to show that the USPA "acted improperly ." Defendant relies upon Sommers Co . v. Moore, in which the Georgia Court of Appeals explained that "improper conduct means wrongful action that generally involves predatory acts such as physical violence, fraud or misrepresentation, defamation, use of confidential information, abusive civil suits, and unwanted criminal prosecutions ." 275 Ga. App . 604, 606, 621 S .E .2d 789, 791 (2005) (citationomitted) . Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to meet this standard .
The Court rejects Defendant's argument . The examples of improper action discussed in Sommers are just that-examples that were intended to be illustrative of the types of conduct that might constitute tortuous interference. Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that the USPA solicited their employees, disrupted contractual negotiations, and directed others to cease doing business with Plaintiffs . The Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts of improper conduct to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Defendant also argues that even if it was improper conduct to solicit Plaintiffs' employees, Plaintiffs' tortious interference claim fails as a matter 27 245, 248-49, 166 S.E.2d 744 746-47 (1969). However, "the competitor's privilege is lost when an illegal restraint of trade or competition under federal or state statutes is created or continued or when wrongful means in the solicitation of employees are utilized ." Am. Bldgs . Co . v . Pascoe Bldg . Sys., Inc., 26o Ga . 346, 349, 392 S .E.2d 8bo, 863 (1990) .
Plaintiffs have alleged facts, that if proven, could demonstrate that the USPA solicited Plaintiffs' employees with malice and with a purpose to drive Plaintiffs out of business. Additionally, as the Court has already found, Plaintiffs have stated a claim under Section One of the Sherman Act, a federal statute pertaining to the restraint of trade and unfair competition .
Under these circumstances, dismissal of Plaintiffs' tortious interference claim would be inappropriate.

Anyone still think that the only reason we had to settle were Jans Actions and that she alone should pay for the Loss?

People that believe the only reason we had to settle was Jans Posting are mistaken.

Those that worked hardest to do what was right should not be punished for those actions. Two wrongs dont make a right.

The BOD knew of Jans previous work on the Skyride issue when they voted to kick out Skyride Owners. They all share responsibility for the action they took.

Removing those websites would not have kept them from being used in this lawsuit. The Posts she made here could not be removed.

I find it strange that people want to kick Jan out because she didnt take down a personal website that was providing a public service.
Yet it was OK for member of the Executive Committee to continue being a Skyride Business associate and profit from skyride during this entire fiasco.

Is Jan a Renegade and/or Maverick that stirs things up?? I think so.
Does the USPA Need her?? ABSOLUTELY!!

I do feel I owe Dr. Lee an Apology for what many perceive as a personal attack. That is not my intention.
I am simply stating that I feel he made some very poor ethical decisions in a)Dealing with Skyride in the first place. b) Continuing to be a Skyride associate after the USPA kicked them out for ethical reasons and c) continuing to be a skyride associate and doing business with then while remaining on the board of the USPA while Skyride had pending litigation against the USPA.

Everything I have heard is that he is a man of upstanding character, However it is also my opinion that he made a poor ethical decision in this matter.

I have said my Peace on this and will remove myself from the discussion.

I am not a lawyer. All Opinions expressed are just that. My Opinions.

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

AC DZ

[jlmiracle 7]

***Additionally, the southern regional director of the USPA manages a drop zone in Tennessee, which is a Group Member of the USPA. Prior to the membership termination notice received by ASC, Plaintiffs were in negotiations with an airport for a drop zone location that would have been in commercial proximity to the drop zone managed by the southern regional director .
***

THIS IS INCORRECT. The past Southern regional director never managed any dz in Tennessee. I should know, I'm married to him.

Again, no due diligence was done on the part of USPA lawyers.

The Exec Committee should be embarassed and ashamed and if they had any sort of decency left in them, they would step down now!

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

I'll admit that I have not taken the time to read the whole document. But from what I see here, it's my opinion that there should be agenda items for "the removal for just cause" Glen Bangs, Lee S., and Larry Hill.

People are most assuridly entitled to their opinion and I for one respect that.
Then again....please refer to my sig line.

[lauraliscious 0]

I was wondering who they were referring to there? Was Mullins ever the Southern RD? But he's a National Director now, not sure what he was in '05. And not sure when he became a Group Member.

Also, who was the president of the EC in '05? Was it Glenn Bangs or someone else? I don't remember, being pretty new to the sport.

Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091

[3331 132]

From the USPA web site. Is this related to the SkyRide issue? Write to us Kip.
-------------------------------------
Announcement of Board Vacancy (updated 01/24/08)

Due to a resignation, there is a vacancy on USPA’s Board of Directors for the position serving as Mideastern Regional Director. At the upcoming meeting, the board intends to elect someone to fill the position for the remainder of the term, which ends December 31, 2008. Section 3-1.3 of USPA’s Governance Manual specifies that a potential candidate must have been a member in good standing for not less than one year immediately prior to the year of candidacy, must be at least 18 by June 1, and must reside in USPA’s Mideastern Region. A potential candidate must secure a nomination by any member of the board.

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[Thanatos340 1]

I posted that excerpt not to say that those people should be thrown out too or that they did anything wrong..

The people named in suit are some of the most respected members of the BOD and rightfully so.

I posted it to show that Jan was not the only one mentioned in that lawsuit.

Quote

no due diligence was done on the part of USPA lawyers.

In psudo defense of the Lawyers.. How do you do due diligence when you do not even complete the discovery process?

Quote

The Exec Committee should be embarrassed and ashamed and if they had any sort of decency left in them, they would step down now!

But wouldn’t it be easier for them to just convince everyone that Jan was the reason we had to settle and let her and only her take the fall?