USPA - Jan Meyer Impeachment??

[packerboy 3]

Quote

Quote

Jan created an anti-skyride website, and being a sitting memeber of the BOD

As an individual.

If she wanted to do it as an individual, she had every right to. She should have stepped down from her position on the board to do so.

Those group members (whether they are scumbags are not) PAY her to represent them. She can't go home and intentionally unravel the work she does in the office and not expect repercussions.

Can't have her cake and it eat it too...

It sucks but... she's lucky to not have a civil libel suit against her personally.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Perhaps if they are in bed with them, they have an interest in giving them a reason to sue.

This taking the conspiracy theory to the next level.

To allow them to remain in the USPA despite their business practices, that would have been a simple conspiracy. Easy to understand, and easy to execute.

To plan their removal, with the intent of them bringing a lawsuit for the express purpose of draining a large sum of cash from the USPA, is far more complex.

The number of things that could go wrong in trying to execute that type of plan is pretty high. You bring a large number of people into the fold, including the federal court system.

If they got caught, it would mean serious federal charges againt most everyone involved. I can't see the reward being worh that risk.

I'll stick with my theory that there is no such collusion.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Dave, please re-read USPA's official statements about the resolution of this matter.

OK, lets say 'The dismissal of half of the charges, and out of court settlement of the remaining charges due to the cost of defending them, and possible loss despite that cost'

[stratostar 5]

Say Gary, could you explain to those of us who may not be clear on this, the rules that apply to BOD members as to when they speak as a BOD member or as a individual. In other words, where is the line drawn, what is allowed and what is not allowed?

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

[packerboy 3]

Even if they were in collusion, you can't ignore your general membership banging down the door. Then YOU look like the bad guy.

At least at this point it "looks" like the USPA "tried" to do something right... and now back to status quo, with a minor agenda change for the next meeting.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[davelepka 4]

Quote

As an elected official resenting Skydivers in the USPA, I think she had an OBLIGATION to get tat information out to the general public as people were being deceived by Skyride on a daily basis

Granted, this is what 'you think'. The fact is that the federal court system holds a different opinion than you do, at least with regards to the methods employed to distribute that information.

Quote

These things were done long before the BOD voted to throw Skyride out

At the time the BOD voted to Oust Skyride, They were fully aware of the Site that Jan ran and the post that had been made.

The BOD voted to proceed anyway knowing full well the sites that Jan ran and the posts that had been made.

What would the alternative have been? Jan's actions had already been taken, there was no way to reverse that. Skyride was clearly not good for skydiving, clearly not who the USPA wanted in their membership.

Were they to simply take one on the chin, and take no action against Skyride because of Jans actions?

Would that have been good for skydiving?

The existance of the lawsuit, and of course it's outcome were unknown at the time the BOD voted Skyride out of the USPA. The BOD made the right move in outing them. Jan's independent actions beforehand came back to bite the USPA on the ass for sure.

But again, I ask, given that Jan's actions had taken place, what course of action against Skyride should the BOD have taken? What other options did they have?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Jan took actions of her own accord, and the USPA got sued (and lost) because of it.

The USPA was sued because they revoked the Group Membership of a DZ affiliated with SkyRide.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[davelepka 4]

Both factors played a role in the lawsuit. If one or the other was not present, the outcome would have been different.

[packerboy 3]

Quote

Say Gary, could you explain to those of us who may not be clear on this, the rules that apply to BOD members as to when they speak as a BOD member or as a individual. In other words, where is the line drawn, what is allowed and what is not allowed?

Her influence as a BOD on a national association of parachutists can not be ignored at any time when speaking publicly about a member of that organization. At least I would see it that way if I were shooting the shit with GB at a weekend boogie. The information she gathered in order to make such accusations was most likely as a direct or indirect result of her work with the USPA.

I sound like I am bashing her... I'm not. I think she was trying to do the right thing, but unfortunately she is trying to take on a bull with a flyswatter, and met the inevitable conclusion.

If people want to correct the underlying problem here, you need to look past Jan Meyers. She was a casualty of a war that needs to continue after she's gone. I'm sure she will see it that way. Move on to the big picture.

What IS the big picture, and who is involved is what I want to know. Is the USPA just status quo now with Skyride showing their logo to everyone they piss off and rip off. I don't want to give my money to an organization that will turn their head to that. Fortunately in Canada I have the option to go somewhere else, but I don't want to.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Both factors played a role in the lawsuit. If one or the other was not present, the outcome would have been different.

That is your opinion.

[peek 20]

Quote

Say Gary, could you explain to those of us who may not be clear on this, the rules that apply to BOD members as to when they speak as a BOD member or as a individual. In other words, where is the line drawn, what is allowed and what is not allowed?

There are no "rules" about this. USPA's Governance manual has a Director "responsibilities" section but does not address this. Robert's Rules of Order does not address this as far as I know.

Being a USPA BOD member does not remove one's right to speak as an individual, (although we can see that some people think otherwise).

"In general", if a member of an organization includes their position or title in correspondence, then they are speaking for the organization.

For example, last February when I posted the paper I wrote called "The Decline in Skydiving in the 21st Century" a number of people claimed it was not a proper scientific research paper because they mistakenly assumed I was representing the Parks College Parachute Research Group.

[diablopilot 2]

You work for someone, right? DO they tell you who to vote for, what hobbies you can have, what you can read, or view, or better yet what you can say in public?

No. Because that would be both illegal and immoral.

Jan's personal life, and BOD life are separate entities and if a prosecution argument singled her out, then she had every right to answer it on her own. But they didn't and she wasn't given any such opportunity.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[stratostar 5]

Ok so in other words, Mike Mullins can say as a sitting BOD member that "USPA's stance on age limits is fucked in the head and anyone big enough to climb into a rig and jump out of a plane should be able to do so." He can say that as a DZO and an individual as long as he says / posts that without signing off as Mike Mullins USPA BOD.???

So that would mean if I felt like setting up a website about what a lier Glenn Bangs is and then I get voted in as a BOD member, I would still have a right to maintain my "Glenn Bangs is a lier" website as a citizen of the United States, would I not? As long as I don't use it to speak as a acting BOD member, correct?

It would seem to me that if there is no clear line in the rules as to what can or can not be said or posted or placed on a website by a individual who happens to also sit on the BOD, then it could be said she was acting with in her rights to legally in act her 1st amendment rights afforded to her under the constitution of the United States as a individual citizen and individual uspa member and not as an acting BOD member of the USPA.

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

[mnealtx 0]

I appreciate the explanation, Dave - thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[packerboy 3]

If what you do in your personal life affects your work or the organization you work for in a negative manner, they should absolutely reserve to the right to dismiss you for that reason.

If what you do in your personal life does not affect who you work for in a negative manner, than they should not care what you do.

ie. Let's say I was on the Board of Directors for Coca Cola. Down the street from my house, there is a bottling plant. (Independantly owned, but operating under the name). I go home and on my spare time I spout my mouth off in a public pop drinkers forum about how disgusting this plant is. They ignore health code violations, bill customers for cases Coke but never deliver, leak raw sewage out the back door and whatnot. I call for their closure and their loss of the right to operate under the umbrella of the Coca Cola organization. This plant turns around and sues Coca Cola because of my actions.

Will I get fired from Coca Cola?

Absolutely, and I couldn't speculate as to what else would happen.

Edited to add: Coca Cola would probably have interest in settling with this bottling plant out of court, but would also have interest in making it go away. Question is: Does the USPA have interest in making Skyride go away or not.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

There are no "rules" about this. USPA's Governance manual has a Director "responsibilities" section but does not address this. Robert's Rules of Order does not address this as far as I know.

You would actually need to look at the state laws of the state that the non-profit charter for the USPA was drawn up in to identify this information.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[crotalus01 0]

You wouldn't get fired if Coca Cola went to bat and proved it was true in court. The difference being Coca Cola has a little more disposable income to fight such a lawsuit (unlike say the USPA)...

As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...

[DSE 3]

Quote

or better yet what you can say in public? No. Because that would be both illegal and immoral.

Not quite so. If you are in a corporate, social, elected, or religious representative position, the courts have ruled many, many times that the representative has an obligation to present themselves in an above-average manner consistent with the ideals and values of the group. Not related to Roberts Rules or anything else, it's general conduct. As mentioned in a previous post, if you had one BOD member making public comments about another BOD member's business practices, it's likely that one or the other couldn't remain.
However, read the USPA Governance Manual, and you can see in Section 1-6 and 1.8. There is nothing in there that specifies restrictions placed on Board Members and their extracurricular behaviors, so that particular issue is one that may or may not hold water. If the BOD said anything to Jan about quelling the statements/pages, it probably would hold water.

As far as "who is in bed with" Skyride; take the emotion out of that statement and let it stand on its own in concept.
It's well-known that Skydive Dallas accepts Skyride certificates. Does that put them in business with Skyride? I believe it does. I believe Lee should have stepped off the board the moment his business partner sued the USPA. Alternatively, his dropzone should have discontinued the business partnership the moment Skyride sued the USPA.
But I'm not on the BOD to have suggested this. I did write a letter to the EC saying this, however

[billvon 2,400]

>DO they tell you who to vote for, what hobbies you can have, what you
>can read, or view, or better yet what you can say in public?

Yes. Once you reach a level within an organization (generally director or above) where you are considered one of the policy-makers of the organization, you can be required to not make statements about company policy, or to make statements only in line with certain company policies.

For example, were I to speak out on any of the several lawsuits my company has going on, and I supported the other party, I would expect to be at least talked to, if not fired. It's in my employment agreement.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

It's well-known that Skydive Dallas accepts Skyride certificates. Does that put them in business with Skyride? I believe it does. I believe Lee should have stepped off the board the moment his business partner sued the USPA. Alternatively, his dropzone should have discontinued the business partnership the moment Skyride sued the USPA.

Which do you think would have hurt the USPA`s case worse if it went before a Jury?

a) An Elected official with absolutely no conflicting business interests maintaining a website that Documents FACTUAL information about unethical and fraudulent business practices within Skydiving.

b) A member of the Executive Committee of the USPA directly supporting the business they kicked out and continued to support them after they were kicked out and still continued to support them after they filed suit.

On the one hand you have an elected official publicly documenting the reasons Skyride should be thrown out. Then you have another senior official still doing business with them. Talk about sending a confusing message to a Jury and really hurting your case.

I think option b would have looked MUCH worse to a jury if this case would have made it to trial.

[peek 20]

Quote

You would actually need to look at the state laws of the state that the non-profit charter for the USPA was drawn up in to identify this information.

That would be a very good resource, thank you.

[DSE 3]

Can't agree with you there, Jay. If anything, Lee's continued position on the board demonstrates a willingness on the part of the USPA to attempt to be fair.
Jan is a decision-maker, industry leader in a "corporate" position whose statements carry great weight both within the skydiving industry and outside industry simply by the position which she holds.

IMO, the elected official does not have the right to publically document anything when there is litigation involved. Ever. If it is felt the public needs to know what is going on behind closed doors, then the elected official owes it to the board to step down.
Facts are only what you make of them.

Fact One-Skyride is unethical, commits fraud on a regular basis, and is an organization filled with scumbags and cheats.
Fact Two-Fact One doesn't impact how the USPA represents the skydiving world. USPA doesn't regulate commerce.

I don't believe that Lee's continued presence on the board would make an iota of difference to a jury or judge. I just happen to feel that his remaining on the board is an unethical position on his part. I don't know Lee, so only see this in black and white.
Since you feel the board won't vote to impeach and remove, it seems this argument is now moot.

[packerboy 3]

Quote

You wouldn't get fired if Coca Cola went to bat and proved it was true in court.

I seriously doubt that.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[packerboy 3]

Quote

Fact One-Skyride is unethical, commits fraud on a regular basis, and is an organization filled with scumbags and cheats.
Fact Two-Fact One doesn't impact how the USPA represents the skydiving world. USPA doesn't regulate commerce.

This is KEY!

Fact 3 - Someone on the BOD used the influence of their position for the means of negatively affecting the commerce of the members of it's own organization. (JUDGE, JURY, EXECUTIONER)

Whether it is morally right or wrong, it is grounds for removal. No organization can be allowed to accept this kind of behaviour from it's executive members.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Those group members (whether they are scumbags are not) PAY her to represent them

This one statement shows why the group memebership program needs to go and there needs to be a sweeping change on the board.