USPA - Jan Meyer Impeachment??

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Potential conflicts of interest, to identify and make it known to everyone in the skydiving community who they are. In general trying to identify and isolate those people from the rest of the community.

The best way to make sure there are no conflict of interest would be to have non-skydivers as board members. That won't happen, therefore conflict of interest will remain.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It would be no problem finding people to fill the seats if DZO's were excluded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I completely disagree....If that was the case we would not see regions with ZERO people running for RD.

Hey Swoop, I'm not sure how you got that quote connected with my name, by those are Peek's words, not mine. I agree with you, and my quote on the subject is as follows -

Quote

The real problem is finding people to fill the seats. It's common for the elections to have only one or even no cadidates in some regions. Lets exclude DZOs from the next election, and see what were left with.

[peek 20]

Quote

...If that was the case we would not see regions with ZERO people running for RD.

Do you know why that is? There have been several cases where it was well known that the incumbent (in at least one case a DZO) planned to run again, (and was likely the only one running) but the incumbent did not send in their election materials on time as required by the election process.

The result: No one on the ballot!

But a person who might be thinking of running would not know that the DZO/incumbent/etc. was going to make that mistake, so they would not run.

Another wrinkle to this is, that if an incumbent knew that someone else was going to run against them, that they would probably pay more attention to those deadlines and not make that mistake, resulting in the same situation.

[DSE 3]

Quote

There would probably be many more candidates, because members would know that they do not need to compete with another candidate that is an incumbent, already well known (from a skydiving related business perhaps), has a turbine aircraft to fly around to various drop zones, or whose face is seen in USPA publications.

It would be no problem finding people to fill the seats if DZO's were excluded.

Unless the average member has a lot of time and money to run for the position to prove a point or to raise awareness of an issue, they normally will not run if they don't think they have a chance.

I dunno if I can agree with this statement, Gary. I'm OK for money and can manage the time. But I won't/can't for office for a number of reasons;

~too new to the sport, I've seen how people with minimal time are treated and/or spoken about

~Not part of the 'good ole boy' network, and don't care to be.

~not former nor retired military

~my current RD does a very fine job, both in keeping my region informed and responding to queries.

~and of course your last, I don't think I'd stand a chance of being elected due to all of the above combined.

Last year, there were regions with no one running. In some regions, very few people bothered to vote. Folks generally genuinely don't care about the politics of any administration so long as the trains run on time and taxes aren't out of line, whether it's the USPA, NBA, or USA.

There will *always* be conflicts of interest. I submit conflicts of interest are good ingredients when managed properly. Conflicts of interest/personal agendas are why people run for board positions. Candidates often have issues with how policy functions, so they run for office with the intent of changing those policies. This is a conflict of interest too, but it's a motivational factor.
Why did you run for office?
I'll wager that in no small part, it was because you haev a passion and love for the sport, but you also feel/felt that some changes needed to be made within the representation/administration of the sport, and you wanted to make a change that you believe is for the better, no?
FWIW, I think it's an admirable motivation. But not kept in check by board members and/or constituents, it can become a misguided motivation.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Lets keep in mind that Skyride doesn't bring new business into skydiving, they just intercept the existing business that is seeking a DZ in their area. Skyride is, in effect, taking control of a portion of the customer base, the same customer base these DZ pulled from before Skyride came along. If they were to drop Skyride, they would lose this portion of their customer base.

Let's keep in mind that the BOD positions are not paying gigs. You're already getting their time and money (for travel) for free, do you really expect them to risk their livelyhood by dropping 1/3 of their tandem business?

To that end, do you really think that they are happy with Skyride? With the crooks they turned out to be after these people 'got into bed' with them? Do you think these DZOs are happy about paying a 20% commision to Skyride, when they expected Skyride would be bringing new business in, only to find that Skyride was simply intercepting the customers already looking for a local DZ?

I think you answered your own question. DZO's would not lose 1/3 of their business if Skyride went bye-bye. Those same good customers would find the closest DZ to their location the way they always -used- to do. Honestly, through the yellow pages, internet (DZ's OWN listing), or word of mouth.

ltdiver

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

[PhreeZone 15]

They would not lose 1/3 of the business, they would have that 1/3 routed to another dropzone instead until they are able to out advertise and place themselves in a better position for the consumer to find them then Skyride does.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

They would not lose 1/3 of the business, they would have that 1/3 routed to another dropzone instead until they are able to out advertise and place themselves in a better position for the consumer to find them then Skyride does.

*Gasp!* You mean customers would find their -nearest- DZ and save travel time and headaches? Imagine that! "Local Businesses Prosper"--Film at 11.

ltdiver

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

[popsjumper 2]

I did notince a small change in the General Membership Meeting Agenga from something a little bit specific to the more generalized:

10. Open discussion forum from the membership
1. Discuss elimination of Petitions for RD candidates
2. Requirements to change the Constitution and By-laws

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

Do you know why that is? There have been several cases where it was well known that the incumbent (in at least one case a DZO) planned to run again, (and was likely the only one running) but the incumbent did not send in their election materials on time as required by the election process.

The result: No one on the ballot!

So your saying two things here.
1. Our RD's don't know anything about their position/ how to re-run for their position.(which I know to be true also)
2. "ALL" those non-DZO people who want to run for RD won't bother unless they know they are a shoe in.
BS! They are not out there

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

10. Open discussion forum from the membership
1. Discuss elimination of Petitions for RD candidates
2. Requirements to change the Constitution and By-laws

To all those attending I suggest:
1. Completely read the Skyride lawsuit against USPA.
2. Read a little about Anti-trust lawsuits.
3. Understand how BOD's and EC's work.
4. Come with something other than, "she is my friend and you guys are crooks."

Like I said in previous posts, I think Jan was good for the common jumper. Maybe her hardheaded skydiver approach of "I do what I want to do" was not the best stance for a BOD member.

[peek 20]

Quote

So your saying two things here.

Well, those are not the things that I'm saying, but I'm not even going to re-quote them. And I'm going to stop now because this is distracting from the original post.

So, Shawn, do you support Jan Meyer's efforts or not?

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

Well, those are not the things that I'm saying, but I'm not even going to re-quote them.

So, Shawn, do you support Jan Meyer's efforts or not?

Without re-quoting my previous 12 posts. Yes, she was a good voice for the common jumper. Yes, she was out of line for a USPA board member and Anti-trust lawsuits were a direct result of her words.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Doc Lee who the fuck knows, but I bet it's an upper crust ego stroke and keeping those skyride dollars rolling in to his bank account...

The lynch mob is growing in frenzy...

Dr. Lee Schlichtemeier is a respected Doctor of radiation oncology. If you have cancer, he's a go-to guy to save your life. I'm sure that he makes enough money from his well-established medical practice that he doesn't need to be "unethical" to get Skyride money for his DZ. I think he runs a DZ as a sideline because he loves skydiving, not because he needs the money. In fact he incurs a lot of hassle and financial risk doing so, for the benefit of jumpers in his area.

I would like to see some self-restraint practiced on these kind of subjective unfounded attacks on our fellow members.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Like I said in previous posts, I think Jan was good for the common jumper. Maybe her hardheaded skydiver approach of "I do what I want to do" was not the best stance for a BOD member.

I would like to add my $0.02 to this...Jan speaks up for us peons and that's good. Apparently, the way it's done is more counter-productive and the message gets lost. Tact and diplomacy are good things.

I do understand that with some people tact and diplomacy goes right over their heads and a more direct approach is required. Some respond to that and others don't respond no matter what you say or how you put it. So what do you do? Get some people in there that are willing to respond and work together.

Kingdoms don't usually produce good results in the long run.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

The fact is, he runs a DZ as a sideline because he loves skydiving, not because he needs the money.

Then why does he choose to deal with an entity like Skyride If he doesn’t need/want the money?

why did he continue to be a business associate of Skyrides when the USPA BOD kicked them out for unethical business practices?

Why did he continue to remain a business associate while sitting on the Board and as a member of the executive committee while that very same entity had pending litigation against the USPA?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Yes, she was a good voice for the common jumper. Yes, she was out of line for a USPA board member and Anti-trust lawsuits were a direct result of her words.

The fact that the USPA has a GM program could also be argued as the reason the USPA Had to settle.

The Fact that the BOD Voted them out (a GROUP Effort) could be argued as the reason.

The Fact that there was a sitting member of the executive committee still in business with Skyride Before, during and AFTER they were kicked out could be argued as a reason.

The fact that Insurance companies always want settle lawsuits could be argued as the reason we had to settle.

The Anti-Trust Lawsuit was coming no matter what she said or did because the USPA had a GM program. To say that Jan is the only reason the USPA was sued I think gives her a little too much credit.


Now we have been forced to accept Skyride and thier DZ`s back into the USPA, Do we also now adopt their cut throat Machiavellian ethics and kick out the one person that was trying to do the right thing?

Sorry but two wrong do make a right.

This idea that we lost (We didnt, We settled) so someone must hang for it is bullshit. And the fact that the person they are hanging out to dry for this is the one person that did the most to help the cause to begin with.

The ENTIRE Board had a chance to vote on this action. I would say that they ALL share responsibility for the outcome of that action but in reality the only ones that were really privy to anything going on with this lawsuit was the Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee has issues such as direct conflicting business interest and possibly personal vendetta against Jan.

Another question that I hope the USPA will clarify soon. Who do they represent?
The DZO`s?
The Skydiver`s?
The Manufacturers??
The Group Members??

[divnswoop 0]

J, we continue to agree that there could be seveal contributing factors to the the lawsuit. I have never said Jan was the 100% reason. Many of the things you talk about, I have no hard proof cause I didn't see the settlement. I did however see what Jan has said and I was replying to the questions peek had asked.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

we continue to agree that there could be seveal contributing factors to the the lawsuit. I have never said Jan was the 100% reason.

If I can get no other point across but that one, that is a good start.

Those screaming, We lost, Jan has to go!! need to realize there was MUCH more to this than just one person actions.

I think this entire mess was mishandled by the Board, By Jan, By the Executive Committee and especially by the Lawyers.

ALL share responsibility and to try focus the entire blame as some are doing on one person is wrong.

[lauraliscious 0]

Quote

Not sure if anyone saw this or really even cares but the agenda was updated on the 18th. The action item is now:

8. New Business
A. Recommendation of the Executive Committee in the Matter of the Removal of Jan Meyer for Just Cause.

Nice catch, Phree. I hadn't been checking the USPA website for updates. Does anyone know what that means? Can they remove Jan for Just Cause without going through the impeachment process and therefore without having 2/3rds of the BOD's vote?

I plan to read everything relevant that I can prior to going to Orlando. Including the list divnswoop mentioned, as well as the USPA Governance Manual. The meetings should be interesting, at any rate.

And for the record, I did vote in the last election. I probably wasn't as informed as I could have been (and plan to be next time), but at least I did vote.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>The DZO`s?
>The Skydiver`s?
>The Manufacturers??
>The Group Members??

All of the above. Without DZO's and manufacturers there would BE no skydiving - and in most cases, the DZO's and manufacturers are members as well. They have as much right to ask for changes to USPA's policies as you do.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Not sure if anyone saw this or really even cares but the agenda was updated on the 18th. The action item is now:

8. New Business
A. Recommendation of the Executive Committee in the Matter of the Removal of Jan Meyer for Just Cause.

Just saw that too, but Phree beat me too it, posting that this change was made.

It will be interesting to see if the "minutes" that come out post-next BOD meeting have any real details as to what they mean by "just cause".

[divnswoop 0]

Quote

we continue to agree that there could be seveal contributing factors to the the lawsuit. I have never said Jan was the 100% reason.

If I can get no other point across but that one, that is a good start.

Those screaming, We lost, Jan has to go!! need to realize there was MUCH more to this than just one person actions.

I think this entire mess was mishandled by the Board, By Jan, By the Executive Committee and especially by the Lawyers.

ALL share responsibility and to try focus the entire blame as some are doing on one person is wrong.

[packerboy 3]

I think.. and this is a long shot... maybe just a dumb idea...

If everyone screwed up, shouldn't the person who is in charge of the whole f'ing thing also be gone? I mean, isn't he ultimately responsible for the actions of the association as a whole?

BTW the Toronto Maple Leafs finally fired John Ferguson Junior today. Good for them, it's been a long time coming. It was a good move. Maybe now that the top end management is being changed, they will be able to do some good as an organization.

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

[pilotdave 0]

We don't know why they want to get rid of her yet, but my guess is that it has little to do with the skyride lawsuit that was settled. I'm guessing it has a lot more to do with what she did after the settlement. She really pissed them off. Seen her avatar picture?

I'm guessing they told her to shut up and she didn't. They were probably afraid that she might open the door to another lawsuit from skyride, so they best end their association with her. I don't know her, but the more crap she pulled, the more I began to like her. It would suck to see her go, but if she does, I hope she stops holding back on the skyride issue and the USPA GM program. I bet she has a few more things to say.

Dave

[divnswoop 0]

Thanks for the update.....


Have you read the lawsuit against UPSA?