Group Member Program Pros/Cons

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Sure I can make a video of me dancing to my favorite song and post it on the Internet with little to no fear of consequence, but if I were to take that same song and it's associated music video and try to sell it as I was the owner on a mass scale...

It's not a matter of degree. In either case you are infringing. In the former case, if your video became wildly popular mostly due to the enhancing value of the other guys work. How do you think the musician would feel about it??

Anyway, I think this is getting too close to hijacking this thread ...

Back to the subject ... anyone can come up with official looking certificates and seals. The whuffo's wouldn't know the difference between them. That's why the sleazeballs can get away with simply claiming that their members are certified; there's no seal required and certainly no inspection criteria to back up the claim.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Are you saying Skyride would just steal the USPA Certified logo anyway so there is not point in trying to institute an inspection program?

I don't think that's what he's saying.

The seal would have very little effect. The cost of implementing it and enforcing it would not be justified.

Quote

I also pointed out that if the USPA protect its trademark (As ANY Organization Should) it would help SOME people be able to distinguish between a Real DZ vs a Virtual DZ.

That is one reason this is such a silly idea. It would be so costly to implement, that it would not be justified just so that "SOME" people might distinguish. I think that "SOME" would be a very tiny number.

Quote

This is just one thought and really should have no bearing on whether a DZ inspection program is a good idea or not

I disagree. I think part of the point is that, like certificates/seals, the public would not be able to distinguish the difference between the USPA's inspection/certification program and the sleazeballs' "inspection/certification" program. It would be a waste of time and resources.

[billvon 2,400]

> If the "Certified USPA DZ" seal were properly placed.. It would only
> appear on REAL Dropzones. Virtual (Read Non-Existant) Dropzones
> could not possibly have this seal.

Right. They would have a "Certified Safe DZ (Safer than USPA!)" seal, no doubt certified by a local highly experienced instructor. And whuffos wouldn't know the difference, and experienced jumpers would care more about the "$15 jumps all weekend!" sign.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Are you saying Skyride would just steal the USPA Certified logo anyway so there is not point in trying to institute an inspection program?

Did I mention Skyride? Did I mention not having an inspection program?

Someone mentioned I'm wasting my breath trying to have a productive discussion on this subject, I'd be better off teaching a pig to read a wristwatch. I think he's right. The single-minded, one-track view demonstrates a lack of ability to creatively look at a situation. It always seems to come down to one subject, and if this community is this short-sighted, then they deserve whatever leadership they apathetically permit.

[Thanatos340 1]

I am getting a little sick of the thinly veiled personal attacks here.

This past ridiculous. This Thread is about the GM program and possibly replacing it with an inspection program. I have stayed completely on topic. I did mention that such a program might help to distinguish Virtual DZ from Real DZs. Weather that is true or not does not warrant being called a Pig. (And I agree with what Bill said. Virtual DZ would just create a different Seal and Jumpers will just go for the $15 Jumps)

At no point in any of this discussion of the past few day have I attacked anyone with an opposing opinion. I find that the Moderators being the first to go down that road pretty sad.

There are lots of varying opinions on a lot of separate matters here. I don’t have any intention of keeping quiet with mine and am completely willing to listen to and learn from others.

[DSE 3]

No one called you a pig. Anywhere. "I'd be better off teaching a pig to read a wristwatch" is called an "aphorism." We even learnt about those on the rez.

We agree; when an aphorism is personalized, it's a lack of ability to objectively hold a discussion, which was my original point. Which does point to "ridiculous."

An inspection program, properly monitored and funded, could be a good thing. Having the "good housekeeping stamp of approval" however, is meaningless. No one could be prevented from closely copying it or using it as-is on their website or at their DZ.
It could also fall down very easily. For example, Joe doesn't like Steve, and Joe is responsible for inspecting Steve's DZ. Joe doesn't give Steve his "Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval." Steve appeals, USPA says "Screw you, Steve, we trust Joe." Steve has a non-official inspection by David, who is also a USPA inspector, and David says "Steve's DZ is fine." Where do you go from there?
Didn't we see some of this favoritism in the early days of AFF evaluation?
Maybe we have RD's inspect other RD's areas. That's sure to lead to contention. An RD situatated in the West is surely going to be looking at an Eastern DZ with a jaundiced eye based on topographic or environmental differences if nothing else.
The concept is really, really good. The implementation of the concept needs to be thoroughly fleshed out. It's probably easier to teach a pig to read a wristwatch than to figure out the program here, however.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

"I'd be better off teaching a pig to read a wristwatch"

The hard part is not teaching the pig how to read the wristwatch, it's catching the pig to put the wristwatch on.

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

[Bolas 5]

Not taking sides here but alot of the reasons we are having all these USPA discussions does relate to SkyRide and their practices.

Georgia people have more experience with this group than most everyone else. They've seen firsthand how they've skirted the laws and policies through loopholes for a long time.

In this case when a hypothetical was presented, Skyride was used to give it some validity.

There is no doubt in my mind in the corporate world that anytime you have a loophole, some business is going to exploit it. The way you stop it is to close any loopholes they or others can exploit. You make consequences for actions and treat all offenders consistently.

We know the loopholes and gaps, we just need to close them. That takes, time, effort, money, and sacrifice.

Back in the "good 'ol days" you could sometimes trust people to do what's right and honest because they feared the consequences or were just good people. (Wester settlers the exception ) Unfortunately we don't have that luxury anymore, even in the skydiving industry.

You can't make people do what's right, but you can "punish" them for doing something wrong once you make it illegal.

If Skyride hadn't brought all this to our attention, do you really think your average jumper would care about the GM and EC?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DSE 3]

If every problem within the USPA becomes somehow related to Skyride, then we're not looking at the problem correctly. Like the old aphorism goes, "if your only tool is a hammer, then every solution looks like a nail." Oh sh**...now I'm gonna be accused of saying someone nailed a hammer.

Sure, the ASC mess brought a lot of attention to the BOD and EC. But to suggest that Skyride is the only problem is as much BS as suggesting Jan is solely responsible for the Skyride settlement. The issues run much deeper than this episode, IMO.
Our DZ is affected by the non-DZ websites too, probably far moreso than many areas. But to make that the primary focus seems irresponsible.
I find much of this entire subject to be irresponsible with specious claims of "The entire board is in bed with Skyride" when it's only one person. Or "The entire EC is corrupt" when it's not demonstrable as to how or why. Claims of rampant conspiracy with no evidence of who is putting what in their pocket makes me wonder about little tin-foil hats and who's wearing them. I've asked some very specific questions, and haven't gotten a single specific answer, which only furthers my curiosity about tin-foil hats.

Stepping back and looking at the whole simply seems to be more productive, IMO.

[shermanator 3]

Quote

*** Derek,
correctly, a lot of those web-searching tandems would find USPA's inspection report page and could then make an informed choice about which DZ they should go to.

problem with this is that they don't have a DZ until after they have paid and such. then once they have paid, they really don't have a choice.

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

[chutejump 0]

Quote

Quote

"I'd be better off teaching a pig to read a wristwatch"

Quote

The hard part is not teaching the pig how to read the wristwatch, it's catching the pig to put the wristwatch on

It might be easier than you think!!! You could get Skyride to sell the pig a Tandem certificate, Then when the pig arrived at a DZ for his jump you could get USPA to intervene on behalf of the DZ and say that this was not a sanctioned sale under the current GM program, and while the 2 factions were on the phone hashing out their conflict, you could pounce on the confused pig, put the wristwatch on, and tell the pig that Skyride and USPA made a settlement agreement that stated the only way the pig would be allowed to make his tandem jump would be if he met the stipulation that he learn how to read the watch!!! He would than be forced to learn or forfeit the $230.00 charge on his credit card!!!
See!! there is always a solution if you use all of the players and opportunities to your advantage!!!

• Quote

[Bolas 5]

Quote

If every problem within the USPA becomes somehow related to Skyride, then we're not looking at the problem correctly. Like the old aphorism goes, "if your only tool is a hammer, then every solution looks like a nail." Oh sh**...now I'm gonna be accused of saying someone nailed a hammer.

Was that hammer underage? That's not acceptable.

Yes there are alot of conspiracy theorists out there that have been saying things for a long time but there really wasn't alot of proof due in part to jumper apathy and board and EC secrecy. Most fun jumpers didn't really give a crap about what the USPA did, as long as they kept the FAA away from us. It was a wasn't said wasn't asked situation. Unless something they did/didn't do effected you directly or indirectly you didn't know or care.

The handling of Skyride "shined a light" on alot of other things. We were all forced to take a look at what our apathy helped create. The more we looked and found out the less we liked.

At that point one can do a few things:
* Try to learn the facts
* Start the witch hunt
* Burn the place to the ground
* Stick your head back in the sand

We're seeing people do all of these.

Quote

Sure, the ASC mess brought a lot of attention to the BOD and EC. But to suggest that Skyride is the only problem is as much BS as suggesting Jan is solely responsible for the Skyride settlement. The issues run much deeper than this episode, IMO.

I completely agree that Skyride is not the only issue, but it is the most public currently and brought all this to the public. Hell, if that were the case, It'd be alot more forgivable. If it was just a lost lawsuit that'd be fine too. The problem is there are too many unknowns.

People want answers and explanations for actions now and the USPA is not used to having to do that. They don't even really have the processes in place for the most part to provide them. When you don't get them you try to make your own conclusions from whatever info you can find. Some people will don the foil hats and come up with outlandish conspiracy theories.

It's hard to address what you don't know about. Right now the only thing most of us know about is Skyride and it's related actions. With time hopefully people will become more educated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[stratostar 5]

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

[chriswelker 0]

I see the conflict of the USPA trying to be both a individual member organization, and a trade organization.***

The following is a copy of the e-mail I sent to the GM chair.I will be suprised if I get a reply with a reasonable explaniation



Frank,

Could you please give me an explaination why it isn't a conflict of interest for you to be a GM DZ owner and be the GM committee chairman?

You realize you have a Financial Interest in this Skydiving thing, right?

To me having GM DZ owners maiking decisions on the GM committee is like the inmates telling the warden who is going to guard them.

I guess it is time for you to ask Glennduh what to do now.

I do expect a relpy.

Chris Welker
USPA #121707

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

No one called you a pig. Anywhere. "I'd be better off teaching a pig to read a wristwatch" is called an "aphorism." We even learnt about those on the rez.

We agree; when an aphorism is personalized, it's a lack of ability to objectively hold a discussion, which was my original point. Which does point to "ridiculous."

An inspection program, properly monitored and funded, could be a good thing. Having the "good housekeeping stamp of approval" however, is meaningless. No one could be prevented from closely copying it or using it as-is on their website or at their DZ.
It could also fall down very easily. For example, Joe doesn't like Steve, and Joe is responsible for inspecting Steve's DZ. Joe doesn't give Steve his "Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval." Steve appeals, USPA says "Screw you, Steve, we trust Joe." Steve has a non-official inspection by David, who is also a USPA inspector, and David says "Steve's DZ is fine." Where do you go from there?
Didn't we see some of this favoritism in the early days of AFF evaluation?
Maybe we have RD's inspect other RD's areas. That's sure to lead to contention. An RD situatated in the West is surely going to be looking at an Eastern DZ with a jaundiced eye based on topographic or environmental differences if nothing else.
The concept is really, really good. The implementation of the concept needs to be thoroughly fleshed out. It's probably easier to teach a pig to read a wristwatch than to figure out the program here, however.

When colleges and universities are accredited, the college has the opportunity to pre-emptively reject any evaluator who is believed to have a conflict of interest. There is also a "due process" that allows a college to challenge any factually incorrect statements in the evaluation.

On the whole the system works very well.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chuckakers 370]

Quote

Quote

One of the "advantages" not listed is that your drop zone can hold USPA instructional course without having to pay the $600 per course "fine" (as I call it) for not being a GM drop zone.

That's right. If you are not a USPA GM drop zone, your USPA (individual) members cannot attend a course at your DZ without paying a "fine". But don't worry, your DZO will still schedule the course, they will just pass this fee on to the course candidates.

Another fine example of why the GM program should be dropped. In this case, I'm sure the head shed would say the "fee" is a way to keep fairness in the system by forcing a surcharge on non-member DZ's (which, USPA would say, need to pony up money for resources needed to process the course's administrative tasks pre and post-course that member DZ's pay for in the annual GM dues).

But, as any businessperson will tell you, any fee, fine, or any other hike in costs simply results in a price increase (somewhere) in the products and/or services the business sells.

I think it is hugely beneficial to have DZO's on the board. After all, DZO's understand skydiving operations about as well as anyone. However, once DZ's are added to the membership roster, the conflict is obvious.

Nothing new here, really. USPA should never have started a GM program, and should seriously consider canning it and getting back to the business they were so good at for 40+ years - developing safety and training doctrine and fighting the government to keep the skies and airports open for us (notice I said us, not drop zones.

As for whether Gary should drop his group membership, I say yes. But more important, I think Gary and everyone else should use the voice and the vote of their individual membership to lobby this idiotic money grab out of exsistence.

Remember this: USPA is a membership organization. If enough members demand anything hard and long enough, they'll get it. I guess the individual members just haven't had the program slap them in the face hard enough yet.

Chuck

• Quote

[chriswelker 0]

Another fine example of why the GM program should be dropped. In this case, I'm sure the head shed would say the "fee" is a way to keep fairness in the system by forcing a surcharge on non-member DZ's (which, USPA would say, need to pony up money for resources needed to process the course's administrative tasks pre and post-course that member DZ's pay for in the annual GM dues).

But, as any businessperson will tell you, any fee, fine, or any other hike in costs simply results in a price increase (somewhere) in the products and/or services the business sells.

Quote

The following e-mail exchanges between me and the bod are a fine example of what the problem is..the BOD themselves(most of them anyway)

I don't make it a practice of sharing my e-mails but we gotta do what we gotta do.


Sherry,

Please add the following agenda item to the Group Membership Committee:

There was a motion that was put forth by the Group Membership Committee at the Winter 2000 BOD meeting that makes non-Group Members pay a fee for holding a rating course. The motion was voted on and passed by the full bod.

This motion needs to be reconsidered to allow non GM DZ's to hold USPA rating courses without any added fees since it is a Violation of Anti Trust laws to exclude or charge non-GM DZ's that compete in the same skydiving market as GM DZ's because in the eye's of the courts USPA could be considered a TRADE ORGANIZATION(could be a coin flip )and could possibly cause the USPA another Anti Trust Lawsuit.Not to mention that it causes an unnecessary burden on the due paying individual members that the rating program was designed for anyway. The rating course program is a benefit to the individual member. I have researched all GM documented material and nowhere can I find where the rating programs are a benefit for being a GM.

We had a USPA AFF rating course at Mike Mullins' DZ back in May of 2000 when WTS was a non-GM and we did not have to pay any type of extra fee but my wife and I did spend around 2k to go to a BOD meeting the Summer of 1999 to petition the BOD for an AFF rating course to be held at WTS because Glenn Bangs(when he was the Dir. of S&T) told me that WTS could not have a rating course at WTS because the BOD said so. In actuality there were a couple of words in the USPA rating course contract that needed to be changed and that was all. A motion was put forth and voted on by the full BOD and passed and we held the rating course.

I know that it can be changed back so let's GIT' ER DUN!


Thank you for taking care of this in advance.

Chris Welker
USPA Member #121707





Hi Chris,

Sherry forwarded me your email regarding non GM DZ's to hold a USPA course
without the fee.

I discussed this matter with Ed Scott. It has been hashed over and over
and at this time, I don't feel it needs to be added to the agenda. In
addition, we strongly feel that this is not an Anti-trust issue. My
reluctance to add it to the agenda is not to disregard its importance to
you, but rather one to progress the items that are on the agenda.

We don't want to waste important time on items that we feel have little or
no traction to progress. The fact that this has been brought up in the
past with the same result reaffirms my decision not to add it to the
agenda. If however, a significant change or new issues have surfaced
regarding the item, then that would substantiate adding it to the agenda.

We simply can't be rehashing old items without a significant reason to.
If we did, the USPA BOD would never move forward. It is hard enough as it
is.

I realize that it was a huge expense to attend the BOD meeting in the past
for you. However, I encourage you to attend as I do everyone.

Thank you,
Frank Casares
USPA Mountain Regional Director

Chris,
I fail to see your logic in this matter. I could understand if I was
preventing a DZ from becoming a GM and there was a personal gain from it.
However that is not the case. Why a DZ would not want to become a GM is
beyond me, but that is their choice not mine.

A conflit of interest would involve a personal gain for either myself or
my DZ. I can't see any gain whatsoever by not putting an item on a
agenda.

You have more than ample opportunity to voice your opinion in front of the
BOD. It doesn't have to be an agenda item in our committee as you well
know to have the full attention of the board.

I will however, if time permits, will address it if brought up in our
committee by any USPA member during that time.

Frank

Logic: It was okay at the Summer 1999 meeting for a non-GM DZ to hold a USPA
rating course without any fees, then at the Winter 2000 a motion is put
forth and voted on and passed by the full BOD to charge a fee to the non-GM
DZ's to hold a rating course that ultimately benefits the USPA and all of
it's members.

YOU DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS? WAKE UP MAN! The GM program has made a
TRADE ORG. our of our association. The two interests need to be separated.
"NO man can serve two masters."

Just do the right thing.

Chris Welker
USPA #121707

• Quote

[DSE 3]

now here is a post every one can learn from.

[peek 20]

Quote

As for whether Gary should drop his group membership....

Chuck, thanks for your comments. You know, I don't have a Group Membership. I'm not a DZO nor do I have a skydiving business that can have a Group Membership.

[2shay 0]

You get to jump where ever, but they only send me mail when they want my money.

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[chriswelker 0]

Quote

now here is a post every one can learn from.

7-2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Group Membership Committee of the board is
established by Article VIII, Section 2 of the By-Laws as a standing committee. This section outlines the purpose,function, procedures, and responsibilities of the committee and its chair.


7-2.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this committee is to represent the interests of group members before the board and for the benefit ofindividual members.


7-2.3 FUNCTIONS
It will be a function of the Group Membership
Committee to—
A. promote group member adoption of policies, practices,and procedures, including the the USPA Basic Safety Requirements, that enhance the safety of skydiving

B. develop and disseminate information found in
Section 4 of the Group Membership Manual,
USPA Skydiving Aircraft Operations, concerning
the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft used
for skydiving.

C. supervise and direct the administration of the Group Member Program, Section 1 of the Group
Membership Manual

D. provide guidance and direction for the DZ VoluntaryCourtesy Inspection Program, Section 3 of the Group Membership Manual

E. instill ethical business practices among
group members

F. promote communication and the sharing of
ideas among group members

G. consider issues before the board that affect the
business interests of group members

H. assist in the planning and conduct of the USPA
Drop Zone Operators Conference


7-2.4 COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
A. The committee convenes during the board meetings.

For simplicity and uniformity, the following committee procedures are recommended:

1. Previous work of the committee should be reviewed.

2. Recommendations to the board or president
should be formulated.

3. A member of the committee should be
designated by the Group Membership Committee chair to draft any recommended resolutions or other documents, if these have not been previously prepared.

4. Proposed drafts of resolutions or other
documents should be acted upon by the
committee and those approved should be
submitted subsequently to the board or other
appropriate authority.

5. New matters to come before the committee
should be considered.

6. Projects for further research should be
assigned to committee members or other
interested parties.

B. At other times, the committee may also conduct
business by mail, fax, e-mail, or conference call.


7-2.5 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR
The Group Membership Committee Chair—

A. is responsible for ensuring that the functions of the Group Membership Committee are satisfied

B. leads and coordinates committee projects and assigns specific tasks to committee members

C. chairs all committee meetings and presents
committee reports to the board

D. ensures that the president and other necessary
personnel are kept informed of the committee
projects and progress

Below is the USPA conflict of interest stuff. When you look at it you should realize that every time a GM DZ votes or has any input on ant type of GM policy it is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

4. Identifying, reporting, preventing, and eliminating financial conflicts of interest on the board

a. A financial conflict of interest occurs when a board member compromises, or appears to compromise, his or her duties in carrying out USPA policy because of an external relationship that directly or indirectly affects the financial interest of the board member, any family member, or any associated entity.

b. Board members may not make or participate in the making of a decision or vote on any matter if there exists a financial conflict of interest.

c. Intentional and/or flagrant violations of this policy may be considered grounds for removal from the board in accordance with the constitution and bylaws.

d. Procedure

(1) Any board member may bring a "point-of-order" motion if that member believes that another board member is voting on an issue that would constitute a financial conflict of interest.

(2) The president must then rule if the member in question may vote on the issue.

(3) If the president rules that the member will not vote, that member may bring an "appeal" motion.

(4) The appeal motion does not require to be seconded.

(5) The full board or a quorum thereof would then, by a majority of a ballot, decide the issue of allowing the board member to vote.

e. declarations

(1) All board members must declare in a written, dated, and signed statement at the time of their election all financial interests, direct or indirect, in skydiving related businesses of their own, those of any family members, and those of any associated entities.

(2) This includes but is not limited to drop zone operations; parachute equipment manufacturing, distribution, and sales; skydiving instruction for hire; and jump aircraft operations for hire.

(3) This statement must be updated in a timely manner.

USPA GOVERNANCE MANUAL • SECTION 1: GOVERNANCE

Chris