lauraliscious 0 #151 January 17, 2008 JohnRich and DSE...of course I realize I can e-mail the whole board by their individual e-mail addresses. I was being ironic to make a point. I probably will e-mail them at some point. The removal of that group address just makes the process slightly more difficult. An e-mail address being done away with on it's own really is not that big of a deal. But it could be indicative of larger issues, and that is a cause of concern to me. Right now I'm still trying to get enough information to figure out exactly what the issues are, and to figure out exactly what I would like to ask my representatives about. And I do trust my RD, so I'm going to talk to him first. This is about gathering information in order to make informed decisions for me. Who and what to believe has to be an individual decision, based on levels of trust and information gathered, whatever the source. Enemiga Rodriguez, PMS #369, OrFun #25, Team Dirty Sanchez #116, Pelt Head #29, Muff #4091 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutejump 0 #152 January 17, 2008 Quote Quote "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." Well yea, it's knowing what the clean end is, thats the trick.... I think I have a new sig line. I appreciate that you find my view of political correctness entertaining! I, like Martin plan to keep my individual membership so I can vote! on the completely new BOD we need next year! I plan to throw all of my support behind Alfred E. Newman as he has been my signing representative to uspa for GM renewal for many years! (He is a very ethical individual!) They didn't fool him than! and sure can't now! Tom, SkydiveMRVS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stratostar 5 #153 January 17, 2008 Quote I appreciate that you find my view of political correctness entertaining! Well spoken, not entertaining.you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutejump 0 #154 January 17, 2008 Stratostar - "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." Tom Dolphin 08 And remember the clean end is "Always" the other end! Tom, SkydiveMRVS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #155 January 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Let's say that Jan's public comments were the cause of USPA losing four counts on the Skyride lawsuit, which cost the organization (that's us) a lot of money (that's ours). So, what's wrong, then, with ousting the person that caused that loss? Wouldn't this be just like any other business getting rid of an executive whose poor performance has caused business problems? Was the impeachment a condition of the lawsuit "settlement"....maybe, unofficially?"T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #156 January 18, 2008 I have a story.. Pure fiction.. Lets say there an organization.. This organizations purpose is supposed to be to represent the interests of their members. This organization elects officials to represent their interests.. Those elected officials include both National Officials and Regional Officials. Those officials elect a super group of Executive Officials. Now once these Executive Officials get into power.. They find they like POWER!! They finally get to the point that they don’t even want to talk to the Regional Officials and National Officials much less the Members of the organization. But that is OK because the members are notoriously apathetic to what the organization does. Then after several years of a portion of the organization complaining about one member, they finally cant ignore it any longer and are forced into actually **Gasp** Doing something!!But see.. The executive Group really Likes these guys that the membership and Regional and National officials want thrown out. In fact at least one or more of the Executive Group is a business partner with these guys that everyone else wants thrown out. Others are just Buddy, Buddy with them. So what could they Do?? Hey.. as the all powerful executive committee.. They would be the only ones privy to any legal proceedings. They could keep the Regional and National Directors completely in the dark about what was going on and tell them anything they wanted. OK.. Let the group throw them out and then when the Bad guys files a Law suit, The all powerful executive committee will be the only ones that really knows what is happening with it. Oh.. And then there is this one national official that is really a problem. She actually cares about the "Members". Something will have to done about that too!! Now all they have to do is let things go for a while and then convince everyone that the "Insurance Company" will not cover them if it goes to trial because that rabble-rouser National Director said some things. So then they get to settle the lawsuit, Pay off their Buddies (And maybe even get a little Bonus back from their business partners for letting them back in) and nobody will know because no one can discuss the case. Then the super mega bonus.. They can then Setup the person they hate most to take the fall for the whole thing. Impeach them; Kick that trouble maker out of office for questioning their authority (Of course saying that it was because that rabble rousers actions caused them to have to settle the lawsuit). And the double mega super extra Bonus is that the vocal minority that still feels the organization should be representing the members will get pissed off and quit too!! Absolutely Beautiful!! and then Golden ones can go back to doing whatever they want without ever having to listen to those pathetic "Members". (Of course when they are not out cashing checks (remember.. They are Business partners with the guys that everyone wanted kicked out) from their Buddies that the Members wanted kicked out to begin with.) What a Beautiful Plan. I am sure glad that none of this is true. Sure would make a good Book or made for TV movie though. With the Hollywood writers on strike, Think I might could sell the idea to a studio? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #157 January 18, 2008 QuoteWas the impeachment a condition of the lawsuit "settlement"....maybe, unofficially? Could they even legally do that since she is an elected by us, the members, without disclosing the terms of the settlement? When they impeached Clinton, we all knew why. I don't know, just curious. judy Who runs Bardertown? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #158 January 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteWas the impeachment a condition of the lawsuit "settlement"....maybe, unofficially? Could they even legally do that since she is an elected by us, the members, without disclosing the terms of the settlement? When they impeached Clinton, we all knew why. ? No, they could not make impeachment part of a settlement. Not legally, not ethically, not otherwise. No one can guarantee a majority vote in favor of impeachment. Which is why, IMO, the tone of this thread might serve everyone if the emotional BS went away and discussion of how to best respond as a community. Threats and name-calling generally aren't heard as well as a coalition of similar voices with a rational position. Thanatos has a pretty good grip on it, I'd like to hear his suggestions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 3331 108 #159 January 18, 2008 In the history of USPA one member of the BOD has been dismissed after impeachment proceedings, he was Lyle Cameron in 1972, the hard feelings were deep and had been festering a long time. Since then any talk of impeaching a BOD member has been nothing more then popcorn farts.I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Armour666 0 #160 January 18, 2008 The only problem with your story is that there are to many people that like to be spoon feed and will take what you wrote as just that a story. They will believe what ever they are told from the central powers to be. As other have spoken there has to be more action. I'm not able to be at the meeting but in my short time of being around this sport there are people I all ready know and met that hold the same views that I would entrust to take my vote and do something productive with. I will give them my proxy so that even though I can’t be there I will still have a say. This online voting that Jan is working on must strike fear in some of the BOD as it would allow even more people a means of voicing their opinion of what they think of them. The other issue is some people don’t feel comfortable in confrontation or speaking out that’s ok to if they know there are others who will carrier their wishes for them. It’s all ready evident that no matter what opinion you have in this sport your going to piss off people and I’d rather piss people of with sticking with my ethics and what I fell is the right thing to do then just being silent.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #161 January 18, 2008 QuoteI don't understand how any court in America would allow somewhat anonymous postings on an internet forum as evidence. Look at all the drunk ramblings in bonfire and other forums, how serious can you really take most of what you see on internet forums. Actually there is plenty of case law stating exactly the opposite. Statements on the internet are real and carry real consequences civilly and criminally.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnskydiver688 0 #162 January 18, 2008 Better watch what you text message too. Those have been used in court cases as well.Sky Canyon Wingsuiters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bill6870 3 #163 January 18, 2008 QuoteI just saw on the USPA website that the USPA has scheduled impeachment proceedings Jan Meyer at the upcoming Meeting. Since we (the general membership) elected her, do we have any say in this matter? How do we as the general membership start Impeachment Proceedings against CORRUPT officials in the Executive Committee? Edited to correct spelling of name. I was very disappointed to see the impeachment proceeding of Jan Meyer on the agenda. Jan Meyer has given so very much to this sport that we love and continues to be an asset to all skydivers. We need more people like Jan on the board. Jan Meyer was elected by the membership and if there are issues they should be made public to the membership and let the people that voted for or against her to make the decision whether to remove her from the board or not. When voting in elections I prefer to vote FOR the candidate that I like but if Jan is removed from the board you can be sure that I will vote AGAINST the people that voted to remove her. I’m quite sure many other skydivers feel the same way. USPA is supposed to be an organization by, for, and about skydivers, why is it then that the individual skydiver is kept in the dark on so many issues? I find it appalling that not even the BOD can get access to the settlement of the 1-800 Skyride lawsuit, I’m not sure what the reasoning behind that decision is but to the individual skydiver it appears to be an attempt to protect the guilty. Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites divnswoop 0 #164 January 18, 2008 Kind of ironic that the "good ol' boy network" is working on BOTH sides. Side 1: We do what we want and screw the people who don't like what we are doing and have no power against us. Side 2: We will stick by our friend no matter what they cost the organization, the members, or any settlements. Both sides are at fault.e.d.u.c....nevermind Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites divnswoop 0 #165 January 18, 2008 off topic..... I had a friend who every thursday went to a homeless shelter and fed the poor. He also took two foster kids in who were beaten and abused. Then he raised money for the elderly to put them in proper care.... A year later he was convicted of robbing a bank and shot a teller in the process.. Good guy or bad guy? discuss.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #166 January 18, 2008 QuoteWe will stick by our friend no matter what they cost the organization, the members, or any settlements. I take issue with that statement. I know I have never met Jan. There is no way I could consider her a friend other than I have read what she has written, I seen what she has done for the USPA and agree with most of what I have read. The idea that Jan caused the USPA to have to settle with Skyride is what the Executive Committee has implied. That brings up a lot of questions.. 1) Are they telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth? 2) Did the USPA act on sound legal advise? 3) Since the Executive Committee is the ONLY ones that know the details of the settlement and the reasons that settlement was made, How are we supposed to just take their word for it? 4) Does anyone on the Executive Committee have a personal vendetta against Jan? Are they just using her as a scapegoat for their own bungling of this issue? 5) Does the fact that members of the Executive Committee are supporters and business associates of Skyride not raise questions for anyone else? 6) Specifically, What was it she did that caused us to have to settle? It is easy to sit back and take the Executive Committee at their word that Jan was why we had to settle but just saying that doesn’t make it true. (doesn’t mean it is not either but as usual the Executive Committee doesn’t bother to tell us (the general Membership) anything. Just keep us in the dark and feed us shit. At least I feel Confident that Jan would say exactly what she thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CSpenceFLY 1 #167 January 18, 2008 This should be a new thread but I'll add my .02. He is a good guy that went the wrong way. Hopefully he can do some good in prison while he is paying for his crime if they don't put him to death. Doing good does not exempt you from the laws of our society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites divnswoop 0 #168 January 18, 2008 J, my words are there to get people to think and examine. I know you are one of the few people here who have educated yourself on the skyride issue. Unfortunately, I think many people here don't know the details, nor do I know ALL the details. But I am not blindly backing one side or the other. I think Jan has done a lot to help the "common" skydiver. That however does not allow her free range to actively pursue shutting down a business. (even if they deceived their customers) When you hold a public seat, there are rules and regulations that you are held to. There are many other people in this forum that have found out how government works recently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites divnswoop 0 #169 January 18, 2008 QuoteI take issue with that statement. I know I have never met Jan. There is no way I could consider her a friend other than I have read what she has written, I seen what she has done for the USPA and agree with most of what I have read. You agree with the anti-trust statements she made on a public forum as a member of the BOD? Once again, I agree with most of what she says, BUT a member of the BOD can't try and take down business because of their ethics? If that was the case, there are seveal other DZ's who should be shut down for taking underage AFF's, doing RW with two tandem pairs, and breaking other BSR's or decieving their customers, not to mention other issues..... The general skydiving population is JUST as stuck in the good ol' boy network as the BOD members are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Thanatos340 1 #170 January 18, 2008 QuoteWhen you hold a public seat, there are rules and regulations that you are held to. There are many other people in this forum that have found out how government works recently. When there are Wrongs being committed. Does holding a public office mean you should ignore those wrongs? Can you state exactly which Rules she violated and how she violated them? Holding Public seat and working to shut down a business that is defrauding the general public and members of the organization that you represent is NOT against any rules that I am aware of. In fact it should be expected of anyone holding office. You still have not addressed the Clear conflict of interest with the executive Committee members being supporters of and business associates with Skyride. Thus far we only have the implication from them that the USPA had to settle with due to Jans actions. No one has said what it was she did. The accusation she caused the settlement is coming from a highly questionable source that has a clear conflict of interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #171 January 18, 2008 Regardless of who pushed for it, a lot of people on the board must have gone along for the lawsuit to go forward, trying to blame one person is both pointless and vindictive. (In my opinion) Now, if she did anything unethical, or rather, illegal, during the debate, in order to come up with or to dish dirt, that could be grounds for something like this. But I don't believe she did.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites divnswoop 0 #172 January 18, 2008 QuoteWhen there are Wrongs being committed. Does holding a public office mean you should ignore those wrongs? No it doesn't....but there are right and wrong ways of going about it. QuoteCan you state exactly which Rules she violated and how she violated them? No, but I am not a lawyer. There was an issue several year ago where a BOD member gave information to a lawyer about a DZ that he had a personal vendetta with, In fact it was very similar as 95% of the USPA members was against the particular DZ. The outcome was that the DZO won and probably could have shut the USPA down there due to Anti-trust laws......but he only counter-sued for $1. QuoteHolding Public seat and working to shut down a business that is defrauding the general public and members of the organization that you represent is NOT against any rules that I am aware of. I agree, but there are ways about going about it. QuoteYou still have not addressed the Clear conflict of interest with the executive Committee members being supporters of and business associates with Skyride. Thus far we only have the implication from them that the USPA had to settle with due to Jans actions. Maybe clarity will come from the hearings... QuoteNo one has said what it was she did. The accusation she caused the settlement is coming from a highly questionable source that has a clear conflict of interest. once again, I agree....but you have read the lawsuit and there are proper ways about going about getting rid of somebody in your organization.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #173 January 18, 2008 If that was the case, there are seveal other DZ's who should be shut down for taking underage AFF's, doing RW with two tandem pairs, and breaking other BSR's or decieving their customers _________________________________________________ Bingo!If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #174 January 18, 2008 Quote Now, if she did anything unethical, or rather, illegal, during the debate, in order to come up with or to dish dirt, that could be grounds for something like this. . It's easy to ignore ethic vs legal, but in the real world, they're not far apart. Unethical=fired, impeached, removed, terminated Illegal=fired, impeached, removed, terminated, possibly jailed and/or severely fined. On the subject of hypotheticals... If a member of a governing body unwittingly provided confidential and damaging information to the oposing attorney during litigation or settlement negotiation, should it be considered unethical, illegal, both, or neither? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skypuppy 1 #175 January 18, 2008 Frankly it had to be a majority of the board that initiated the lawsuit; if Jan is the reason the organization had to settle, one would say as an executive of the organization she would have to answer TO HER EMPLOYERS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE MEMBERSHIP. In other words, the settlement should be made available to the members, the things Jan did to force the organization into a settlement, and how much it cost the organization as a result. A person is entitled to make a mistake; it would be up to the membership then to decide if they still believed in her and whether or not to continue to support her as their representative. It is NOT the king's decision - all he should be able to do is make a recommendation.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next Page 7 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Thanatos340 1 #156 January 18, 2008 I have a story.. Pure fiction.. Lets say there an organization.. This organizations purpose is supposed to be to represent the interests of their members. This organization elects officials to represent their interests.. Those elected officials include both National Officials and Regional Officials. Those officials elect a super group of Executive Officials. Now once these Executive Officials get into power.. They find they like POWER!! They finally get to the point that they don’t even want to talk to the Regional Officials and National Officials much less the Members of the organization. But that is OK because the members are notoriously apathetic to what the organization does. Then after several years of a portion of the organization complaining about one member, they finally cant ignore it any longer and are forced into actually **Gasp** Doing something!!But see.. The executive Group really Likes these guys that the membership and Regional and National officials want thrown out. In fact at least one or more of the Executive Group is a business partner with these guys that everyone else wants thrown out. Others are just Buddy, Buddy with them. So what could they Do?? Hey.. as the all powerful executive committee.. They would be the only ones privy to any legal proceedings. They could keep the Regional and National Directors completely in the dark about what was going on and tell them anything they wanted. OK.. Let the group throw them out and then when the Bad guys files a Law suit, The all powerful executive committee will be the only ones that really knows what is happening with it. Oh.. And then there is this one national official that is really a problem. She actually cares about the "Members". Something will have to done about that too!! Now all they have to do is let things go for a while and then convince everyone that the "Insurance Company" will not cover them if it goes to trial because that rabble-rouser National Director said some things. So then they get to settle the lawsuit, Pay off their Buddies (And maybe even get a little Bonus back from their business partners for letting them back in) and nobody will know because no one can discuss the case. Then the super mega bonus.. They can then Setup the person they hate most to take the fall for the whole thing. Impeach them; Kick that trouble maker out of office for questioning their authority (Of course saying that it was because that rabble rousers actions caused them to have to settle the lawsuit). And the double mega super extra Bonus is that the vocal minority that still feels the organization should be representing the members will get pissed off and quit too!! Absolutely Beautiful!! and then Golden ones can go back to doing whatever they want without ever having to listen to those pathetic "Members". (Of course when they are not out cashing checks (remember.. They are Business partners with the guys that everyone wanted kicked out) from their Buddies that the Members wanted kicked out to begin with.) What a Beautiful Plan. I am sure glad that none of this is true. Sure would make a good Book or made for TV movie though. With the Hollywood writers on strike, Think I might could sell the idea to a studio? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #157 January 18, 2008 QuoteWas the impeachment a condition of the lawsuit "settlement"....maybe, unofficially? Could they even legally do that since she is an elected by us, the members, without disclosing the terms of the settlement? When they impeached Clinton, we all knew why. I don't know, just curious. judy Who runs Bardertown? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #158 January 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteWas the impeachment a condition of the lawsuit "settlement"....maybe, unofficially? Could they even legally do that since she is an elected by us, the members, without disclosing the terms of the settlement? When they impeached Clinton, we all knew why. ? No, they could not make impeachment part of a settlement. Not legally, not ethically, not otherwise. No one can guarantee a majority vote in favor of impeachment. Which is why, IMO, the tone of this thread might serve everyone if the emotional BS went away and discussion of how to best respond as a community. Threats and name-calling generally aren't heard as well as a coalition of similar voices with a rational position. Thanatos has a pretty good grip on it, I'd like to hear his suggestions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3331 108 #159 January 18, 2008 In the history of USPA one member of the BOD has been dismissed after impeachment proceedings, he was Lyle Cameron in 1972, the hard feelings were deep and had been festering a long time. Since then any talk of impeaching a BOD member has been nothing more then popcorn farts.I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #160 January 18, 2008 The only problem with your story is that there are to many people that like to be spoon feed and will take what you wrote as just that a story. They will believe what ever they are told from the central powers to be. As other have spoken there has to be more action. I'm not able to be at the meeting but in my short time of being around this sport there are people I all ready know and met that hold the same views that I would entrust to take my vote and do something productive with. I will give them my proxy so that even though I can’t be there I will still have a say. This online voting that Jan is working on must strike fear in some of the BOD as it would allow even more people a means of voicing their opinion of what they think of them. The other issue is some people don’t feel comfortable in confrontation or speaking out that’s ok to if they know there are others who will carrier their wishes for them. It’s all ready evident that no matter what opinion you have in this sport your going to piss off people and I’d rather piss people of with sticking with my ethics and what I fell is the right thing to do then just being silent.SO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #161 January 18, 2008 QuoteI don't understand how any court in America would allow somewhat anonymous postings on an internet forum as evidence. Look at all the drunk ramblings in bonfire and other forums, how serious can you really take most of what you see on internet forums. Actually there is plenty of case law stating exactly the opposite. Statements on the internet are real and carry real consequences civilly and criminally.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnskydiver688 0 #162 January 18, 2008 Better watch what you text message too. Those have been used in court cases as well.Sky Canyon Wingsuiters Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bill6870 3 #163 January 18, 2008 QuoteI just saw on the USPA website that the USPA has scheduled impeachment proceedings Jan Meyer at the upcoming Meeting. Since we (the general membership) elected her, do we have any say in this matter? How do we as the general membership start Impeachment Proceedings against CORRUPT officials in the Executive Committee? Edited to correct spelling of name. I was very disappointed to see the impeachment proceeding of Jan Meyer on the agenda. Jan Meyer has given so very much to this sport that we love and continues to be an asset to all skydivers. We need more people like Jan on the board. Jan Meyer was elected by the membership and if there are issues they should be made public to the membership and let the people that voted for or against her to make the decision whether to remove her from the board or not. When voting in elections I prefer to vote FOR the candidate that I like but if Jan is removed from the board you can be sure that I will vote AGAINST the people that voted to remove her. I’m quite sure many other skydivers feel the same way. USPA is supposed to be an organization by, for, and about skydivers, why is it then that the individual skydiver is kept in the dark on so many issues? I find it appalling that not even the BOD can get access to the settlement of the 1-800 Skyride lawsuit, I’m not sure what the reasoning behind that decision is but to the individual skydiver it appears to be an attempt to protect the guilty. Blue Skies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #164 January 18, 2008 Kind of ironic that the "good ol' boy network" is working on BOTH sides. Side 1: We do what we want and screw the people who don't like what we are doing and have no power against us. Side 2: We will stick by our friend no matter what they cost the organization, the members, or any settlements. Both sides are at fault.e.d.u.c....nevermind Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #165 January 18, 2008 off topic..... I had a friend who every thursday went to a homeless shelter and fed the poor. He also took two foster kids in who were beaten and abused. Then he raised money for the elderly to put them in proper care.... A year later he was convicted of robbing a bank and shot a teller in the process.. Good guy or bad guy? discuss.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #166 January 18, 2008 QuoteWe will stick by our friend no matter what they cost the organization, the members, or any settlements. I take issue with that statement. I know I have never met Jan. There is no way I could consider her a friend other than I have read what she has written, I seen what she has done for the USPA and agree with most of what I have read. The idea that Jan caused the USPA to have to settle with Skyride is what the Executive Committee has implied. That brings up a lot of questions.. 1) Are they telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth? 2) Did the USPA act on sound legal advise? 3) Since the Executive Committee is the ONLY ones that know the details of the settlement and the reasons that settlement was made, How are we supposed to just take their word for it? 4) Does anyone on the Executive Committee have a personal vendetta against Jan? Are they just using her as a scapegoat for their own bungling of this issue? 5) Does the fact that members of the Executive Committee are supporters and business associates of Skyride not raise questions for anyone else? 6) Specifically, What was it she did that caused us to have to settle? It is easy to sit back and take the Executive Committee at their word that Jan was why we had to settle but just saying that doesn’t make it true. (doesn’t mean it is not either but as usual the Executive Committee doesn’t bother to tell us (the general Membership) anything. Just keep us in the dark and feed us shit. At least I feel Confident that Jan would say exactly what she thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #167 January 18, 2008 This should be a new thread but I'll add my .02. He is a good guy that went the wrong way. Hopefully he can do some good in prison while he is paying for his crime if they don't put him to death. Doing good does not exempt you from the laws of our society. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #168 January 18, 2008 J, my words are there to get people to think and examine. I know you are one of the few people here who have educated yourself on the skyride issue. Unfortunately, I think many people here don't know the details, nor do I know ALL the details. But I am not blindly backing one side or the other. I think Jan has done a lot to help the "common" skydiver. That however does not allow her free range to actively pursue shutting down a business. (even if they deceived their customers) When you hold a public seat, there are rules and regulations that you are held to. There are many other people in this forum that have found out how government works recently. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #169 January 18, 2008 QuoteI take issue with that statement. I know I have never met Jan. There is no way I could consider her a friend other than I have read what she has written, I seen what she has done for the USPA and agree with most of what I have read. You agree with the anti-trust statements she made on a public forum as a member of the BOD? Once again, I agree with most of what she says, BUT a member of the BOD can't try and take down business because of their ethics? If that was the case, there are seveal other DZ's who should be shut down for taking underage AFF's, doing RW with two tandem pairs, and breaking other BSR's or decieving their customers, not to mention other issues..... The general skydiving population is JUST as stuck in the good ol' boy network as the BOD members are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #170 January 18, 2008 QuoteWhen you hold a public seat, there are rules and regulations that you are held to. There are many other people in this forum that have found out how government works recently. When there are Wrongs being committed. Does holding a public office mean you should ignore those wrongs? Can you state exactly which Rules she violated and how she violated them? Holding Public seat and working to shut down a business that is defrauding the general public and members of the organization that you represent is NOT against any rules that I am aware of. In fact it should be expected of anyone holding office. You still have not addressed the Clear conflict of interest with the executive Committee members being supporters of and business associates with Skyride. Thus far we only have the implication from them that the USPA had to settle with due to Jans actions. No one has said what it was she did. The accusation she caused the settlement is coming from a highly questionable source that has a clear conflict of interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #171 January 18, 2008 Regardless of who pushed for it, a lot of people on the board must have gone along for the lawsuit to go forward, trying to blame one person is both pointless and vindictive. (In my opinion) Now, if she did anything unethical, or rather, illegal, during the debate, in order to come up with or to dish dirt, that could be grounds for something like this. But I don't believe she did.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #172 January 18, 2008 QuoteWhen there are Wrongs being committed. Does holding a public office mean you should ignore those wrongs? No it doesn't....but there are right and wrong ways of going about it. QuoteCan you state exactly which Rules she violated and how she violated them? No, but I am not a lawyer. There was an issue several year ago where a BOD member gave information to a lawyer about a DZ that he had a personal vendetta with, In fact it was very similar as 95% of the USPA members was against the particular DZ. The outcome was that the DZO won and probably could have shut the USPA down there due to Anti-trust laws......but he only counter-sued for $1. QuoteHolding Public seat and working to shut down a business that is defrauding the general public and members of the organization that you represent is NOT against any rules that I am aware of. I agree, but there are ways about going about it. QuoteYou still have not addressed the Clear conflict of interest with the executive Committee members being supporters of and business associates with Skyride. Thus far we only have the implication from them that the USPA had to settle with due to Jans actions. Maybe clarity will come from the hearings... QuoteNo one has said what it was she did. The accusation she caused the settlement is coming from a highly questionable source that has a clear conflict of interest. once again, I agree....but you have read the lawsuit and there are proper ways about going about getting rid of somebody in your organization.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #173 January 18, 2008 If that was the case, there are seveal other DZ's who should be shut down for taking underage AFF's, doing RW with two tandem pairs, and breaking other BSR's or decieving their customers _________________________________________________ Bingo!If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #174 January 18, 2008 Quote Now, if she did anything unethical, or rather, illegal, during the debate, in order to come up with or to dish dirt, that could be grounds for something like this. . It's easy to ignore ethic vs legal, but in the real world, they're not far apart. Unethical=fired, impeached, removed, terminated Illegal=fired, impeached, removed, terminated, possibly jailed and/or severely fined. On the subject of hypotheticals... If a member of a governing body unwittingly provided confidential and damaging information to the oposing attorney during litigation or settlement negotiation, should it be considered unethical, illegal, both, or neither? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #175 January 18, 2008 Frankly it had to be a majority of the board that initiated the lawsuit; if Jan is the reason the organization had to settle, one would say as an executive of the organization she would have to answer TO HER EMPLOYERS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE MEMBERSHIP. In other words, the settlement should be made available to the members, the things Jan did to force the organization into a settlement, and how much it cost the organization as a result. A person is entitled to make a mistake; it would be up to the membership then to decide if they still believed in her and whether or not to continue to support her as their representative. It is NOT the king's decision - all he should be able to do is make a recommendation.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
