USPA Board of Directors: Why Aren't More Non-DZOs on the Board?

[NWFlyer 2]

I originally posted this in the "Drop in the Number of Skydivers" thread, but I figured it might warrant its own discussion. As I'm coming up on my first USPA BOD election cycle since I've become a licensed jumper, I'm curious to learn more about how our leadership is elected and why so many people feel it's not representative of the jumpers in the sport.

MJOSparky posted:

Quote

Go through the list of USPA Directors. How many are DZO’s or an obvious reprehensive of a DZO?

To a large part, DZO’s are USPA. Where do you think that leaves the average weekend jumper? Without representation.

Why is that? Is it because we (the "average weekend jumpers") aren't running? Or we aren't getting elected?

If there's such a concern, why aren't more people who aren't DZOs getting involved? (Genuine question ... I was a brand-new student jumper and not really paying attention during the last BOD election cycle).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

Why is that? Is it because we (the "average weekend jumpers") aren't running? Or we aren't getting elected?

I'll give you pretty much any odds you want it's the former.

Many (most?) recreational sports seem to struggle with getting the rank and file involved in the governance of the sport. People are only keen to contribute when something is annoying them, and even then the contribution is normally limited to complaining.

Operators, on the other hand, have a direct financial interest in how USPA works. For better or worse, the USPA and the FAA are the closest things to a regulator in the USA, and since influencing the FAA seems to be primarily accomplished through USPA, it's a very good idea for DZ management to have representation within the USPA. Simple business sense, and not something you can criticise them for.

Quote

If there's such a concern, why aren't more people who aren't DZOs getting involved?

Because things genuinely aren't bad enough for most people to care. It's their hobby - they spend Mon-Fri dealing with politics and hassle at work and most don't have the time, energy, or concern to do the same with their fun time. Instead, if things get back enough, they'll just go do something else. Otherwise they'll just bitch and continue jumping as normal.

Quote

(Genuine question ... I was a brand-new student jumper and not really paying attention during the last BOD election cycle).

Run for office. Seriously. I think you'd be great at it.


(All the above is just my ill-informed opinion. After all, I'm not a USPA member and I don't normally jump in the USA. So, apply salt to taste .)

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

(All the above is just my ill-informed opinion. After all, I'm not a USPA member and I don't normally jump in the USA. So, apply salt to taste .)

Well, I *was* a bit surprised that the first reply came from Down Under, but I suspect you're exactly right ... ultimately, though, it's a lot easier to bitch than it is to actually get out and take action. There *is* a cost not only in time, but also in travel costs (and potentially lost work time) to attend meetings, and I suspect that holds a lot of people back as well.

Quote

Run for office. Seriously. I think you'd be great at it.

I'm flattered, and mine would certainly would be an interesting different perspective on the board (while I'm not familiar with all the names on the Board, I suspect most if not all of them have been part of the sport for years and years and years, either as jumpers or DZOs or both).

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[peckerhead 0]

I can answer that....

It is because being a regional director is a dirty thankless job.

These are not paid positions. A good regional director should travel and jump at every drop zone in their conference. They should get out there and listen to the people that elected them and represent them at the board meetings. They should not have a financial interest in any one DZ within their conference.

Unfortunately you would have to be independently wealthy to be able to do that and most of these folks have regular jobs. Hell, my regional directors home DZ is in another region!

So in many cases DZ owners who are well known get elected as RD and they never visit other dropzones so they don't really have a clue what is going on in their own region. In some cases they do not really want to represent their competition from a business standpoint.

The solution would be to not allow DZOs to hold seats on the board due to a blatant conflict of interest but that will never happen.

Regional directors or even National directors that own or have a stake in a dropzone will always look out for their own best interests and not the best interests of the DZs in the geographical areas they were elected to represent.


So what is the solution? Run for office, get elected, spend your own money and travel to every DZ in your Region. Talk to the DZOs and the jumpers. Jump with them. And not just the big dropzones but the small ones as well. If you are going to be fair you have to represent the little guys with just as much passion as the big guys!

Don't expect anything in return, maybe a free hotdog or a beer. And no matter what you do someone will get pissed off and say you could have done more.

In my opinion it will cost you at least 50 thousand a year to be a good regional director. And that does not include your jump ticket.

[mjosparky 3]

The BOD for USPA is decided by less then 10% of the membership. The ballot is mailed to each member’s home with return postage paid. Yet over 90% are to fucking lazy to vote. Most DZO’s have much better name recognition in their region then the average weekend jumper. Those jumpers that do vote see a name they know and vote for it.

As Peckerhead posted, a DZO on the board is a conflict of interest. They are concerned with looking out for their own economic interest and that at times is counter to the interest of jumpers.

USPA started out to be an organasion whose purpose was to represent the interests of skydivers who were members of USPA. Then came “Group members”. Simply put a Group Member is a business that offers skydiving services to what used to be USPA members. USPA has become a trade organization who actions appear to focus on the business of selling skydiving services and not the interest of customers or participants of skydiving.

USPA is at present involved in a law suit brought because of action taken by this “trade organization” against a business and it owners. By trying to regulate how a non-member business conducts its business they have put USPA in a position to lose everything. And this action was not to protect the week end jumper; it was to protect DZO’s.

I may be wrong but I think when this suit is settled USPA will cease to exist. We will just have to wait and see.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Regional directors or even National directors that own or have a stake in a dropzone will always look out for their own best interests and not the best interests of the DZs in the geographical areas they were elected to represent

Welcome to politics my friend.


.

[PhreeZone 15]

To start with you need to get a large number of signatures from current USPA members to even get on the ballot. Typically in most regions thats at least most the people from 2-3 of the larger dropzones that have to sign your applicaition, more then that if you are running for a national spot. Then you have to be elected. The National positions are all done by name reconition. You know who Mike Mullins is by name, but do you know who Joe Schmoe is? The people that tend to win National spots on the ones that have been on the Board for ages and everyone knows their name already. The Regional spots are slightly easier to get on the ballot for but in the case of 1 person in my region they started emailing out requests for signatures in January or so and were still trying to get enough in April just to make the ballot. You typically would need to spend 3-5 weekends traveling to DZ's just to get the signatures. Most weekend jumpers are going going to dedicate the time needed to travel just to get the signatures. DZO's on the other hand can typically count on their DZ's support and then usually have a decent enough relationship with other DZ's in the area that they can ask for those DZO's to collect signatures on their behalf. There is nothing from stopping a weekend jumper from developing these releationships.

Most regional spots go uncontested since its such a pain to collect the signatures needed or lack of interest and some don't have anyone at all willing to run for them. National spots the race gets tighter, but I'll bet the vast majority of the board remains the same since its name recconition. There are no term limits so the same people keep getting elected. The onlything that most new members learn about the canidates is the profile that parachutist prints in the election issue. 1 column to describe themselves and their thoughts on skydiving. I look at the voting over the last few years I've been involved in the sport and I know who I want in and out, but most people don't follow along or even care.

Once you get elected you then have to maintain the relationships with the jumpers by visiting them every so often. No matter what you do you'll piss some of them off since they don't like what you voted on or proposed or something.

I had looked into running a while ago but I was really happy with the RD I have and I wouldn't want to replace her. She is running for a national director this year and the canidate for the RD spot is a good guy also that in talking to him I think he'll do a better job then I could do.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[jlmiracle 7]

FYI - National directors don't have to get any signatures. Regionals need 10% of their region signing the petition.

j

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

[ccq 0]

Hi All-

Let me start off by saying that I am speaking for myself, not for the USPA Board. Period. I am compelled to reply here as I just returned from our final Board meeting of the 2005-2006 term. The meeting was held in Fredericksburg, VA.

I am the Pacific Regional Director and am what you would consider your basic weekend skydiver. I do have some ratings and regularly "work" for a specific DZ, but I have no direct interest in any skydiving business.

I decided to run for election to the Board for a number of reasons:
1. I am passionate about skydiving and I wanted to help out the sport.
2. My specific concern was with Safety and Training (versus Competition or some other facet) as I had been actively instructing for a while.
3. I felt that the average jumper was not adequately represented on the Board (too many DZO's, etc).
4. I had the time.
5. I wanted to repeatedly hit myself on the head with a 2x4.

Ok, just kidding on that last one! But the list above should give you an idea from where I was coming.

There is the perception that the DZO's on the Board have only their business interests at heart, have a conflict of interest, have turned USPA into a trade organization, etc. From my first hand knowledge, I believe those perceptions to be patently false. I was VERY pleasantly surprised by my first meeting as I got to know everyone and we talked about lots of issues. The DZO's on the Board are doing the best they can for what they think is best for the sport. While I may not agree with each person on the various issues, I believe they are not looking at the bottom line with every decision they make but rather what will serve our membership. The conflict of interest rules also bar any Board member from contributing to the discussion or voting on any issue that has an impact on their bottom line. Those rules are regularly exercised at every meeting.

Now, why are there a lot of DZO's on the Board and not that many average, weekend skydivers? I believe it boils down to a few reasons:
1. "It is because being a regional director is a dirty thankless job." Well put, peckerhead.
2. It does cost the Board member money out of their pocket to be a Director, but USPA does pick up the airfare and hotel for our semi-annual meetings.
3. It is unpaid work that can take up a lot of time. That time could be better spent doing myriad other things (skydiving, for example!).
4. Most weekend skydivers just want to jump and not be bothered with the mechanics of things. Fair enough.
5. DZO's are, in general, passionate about the sport. They are optimistic enough to try and make money at this thing, so it should come as no surprise that they have the motivation to volunteer their time and try to make the sport better.

I suppose you can turn around that last one and say, "Well, therefore, they must only be looking at the bottom line!" Horse-poopy. I've been there, I've seen it.

A couple of other thoughts. I believe that we should have more turnover on the Board. I think many of my fellow members would agree. I wish it were easier to get on the ballot, but it is not. Remember that proxy fight of a few years ago? The election process was one of the things the Board wanted the authority to change and the membership was too apathetic/paranoid to give them that power. Bummer. Maybe we can try again at some point in the future.

As has been said before, if you want to change things, get yourself elected! I know it's not easy, but it's not that hard. Even if you can't get elected, show up to a Board meeting. Almost all of the meeting is open to members and your input is highly valued. Go to the committee meetings and talk. Get something on the agenda and have it changed. Do something besides sit around and complain!

Ok, off my soap box. Enough for now.

Cheers,
--Q
Pacific Regional Director

PS: Krisanne, see ya at the Prairie?!?!

-----
Chris "Q" Quaintance
ccqquaintance.com
D-23345

[Ron 7]

Quote

It is because being a regional director is a dirty thankless job.

These are not paid positions. A good regional director should travel and jump at every drop zone in their conference. They should get out there and listen to the people that elected them and represent them at the board meetings. They should not have a financial interest in any one DZ within their conference.

Yep, very few people can afford to work without pay. DZO's can, and it is in their best interest.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

...Remember that proxy fight of a few years ago? The election process was one of the things the Board wanted the authority to change and the membership was too apathetic/paranoid to give them that power. Bummer. Maybe we can try again at some point in the future...

ccq, I guess I wasn't one of the apathetic, but rather one of the paranoid, since "yes" I remember the proxy fight of a few years ago and "yes" I was one of those who voted against it... although I'm still unsure if it was even "legal" for the board to have the membership vote "yea" or "nay" to change the rules in that manner... anyways, if y'all are going to "try again", what do you pose be done to cure the "apathy" problem and get the membership involved and disspell the "paranoia" that its just a "power grab" on part of the BOD?

--- break --- break ---

Onto a couple of comments Phead made that I'd like to pull a few threads on...

Having never been a regional director myself (nor do I think I'd ever want to be)... I'd have to agree that appearances are that its a thankless job... and that a regional director would have to be independently wealthy to visit all the DZs in his or her region frequently... at this time, I'll note that I'm in the Western Region and, while I haven't always, I have voted for the current and preceeding two regional directors out here... However, it has (and continues to) irk me that the only time you seen the regional director or someone running for the BOD is around election time when they come around the smaller DZs with a stack of ballots and envelopes trying to drum up the vote... for them. Its fun to take a ballot and say something like, "Sure I want to vote... I'm going to vote for !"... the look you get is priceless... otherwise, you've had to go to Perris to see the regional director... great for Perris, but not so much if you jump a one of the many other DZs in the Western Region. Anyway, my point... I don't know what the solution is, but my point is, I'll agree there is a lot of apathy amongst the membership, but to the reqional directors and BOD members and everyone, don't sluff it all off on the membership when its the only time we see y'all is around election time, is anything different expected then?

--- break --- break ---

Is the USPA there for the membership? Or is it there to represent the interests of the DZOs and promote the sport in their favor... i.e. increased business for them? *sigh* Obviously its a bit of both, not an easy thing to balance. To the membership, we're kinda stuck, its really the only game in town for us... so I think another slant on this is to ask oneself, what does USPA do for me and am I happy with that?

My answer to what USPA does for me... in no particular order...
1) It gets me a magazine each month.
2) It gets me a membership card and a USPA sticker.
3) It represents me to the FAA.
... am I happy with that?
1) Yes, to a limited degree, Parachutist has cool pictures for me to show my Whuffo buddies when I ask and useful information within, but I also subscribe to Skydiving as they're willing to print things from a viewpoint that are more "controversial" that IMO USPA/Parachutist will not print.
2) The membership card keeps me from avoiding the hastle of going to a DZ that requires folks to be a USPA member to jump at... and the new USPA sticker I get every year is good to replace the one on the back of my car that the desert environment eats up throughout the year.
3) Basically, I think the USPA has done an acceptable job of keeping the FAA out of our knickers and letting us be "self governing" when it comes to training students and ratings and such... now ask me if I think the USPA is getting into our kickers too much on this same thing and I'll have a different comment, but that's a different story...

more...

I suppose if I ever get to a point where I am seriously unhappy with my #3, above, that's when I'd seriously consider not being a USPA member... but it would probaly coincide with something coming down from the FAA that made me not want to be out skydiving every weekend because of something that was too much of a hastle or made it too expensive.

Anyway, to get back to the beginning... In recent elections, my tendancy is to not vote for folks on the BOD that are also DZO's of large drop zones... problem is, sometimes that doesn't leave a lot of others to vote for, depending on who's on the ballot, and these same tend to still be elected anyways, I'm guessing due to name recognition as someone up-post said.

[NWFlyer 2]

Thanks, Q... I was hoping you (and some of the other BOD members who are active on DZ.com) would chime in here. It was interesting to sit and chat with you a few weeks ago about your experience on the Board.

Didn't I hear that you got elected as a write-in candidate? How does that process differ from the "standard" process in terms of the requirements for the candidate, etc.? (I did look around the USPA site and can't seem to find anything about the election process/bylaws...maybe it's not there or maybe I'm not looking in the right place).

Quote

As has been said before, if you want to change things, get yourself elected! I know it's not easy, but it's not that hard. Even if you can't get elected, show up to a Board meeting. Almost all of the meeting is open to members and your input is highly valued. Go to the committee meetings and talk. Get something on the agenda and have it changed. Do something besides sit around and complain!

Thanks for that ... I posted this because I knew it would stir some interesting debate, but there does tend to be a lot of "well, I'd never do it but I'm going to bitch and moan about the person who does take the time to do the job." If USPA's gonna function as a representative organization, people have to get involved, even if it's just by exercising their vote.

I haven't been in the sport long enough to have had time to form a strong opinion one way or another about USPA and its leadership... but as we enter the election cycle, I figure it's as good a time as any to start learning more.

And yes, you'll definitely see me at the Prairie.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ccq 0]

Quote

Quote

...Remember that proxy fight of a few years ago? The election process was one of the things the Board wanted the authority to change and the membership was too apathetic/paranoid to give them that power. Bummer. Maybe we can try again at some point in the future...

ccq, I guess I wasn't one of the apathetic, but rather one of the paranoid, since "yes" I remember the proxy fight of a few years ago and "yes" I was one of those who voted against it... although I'm still unsure if it was even "legal" for the board to have the membership vote "yea" or "nay" to change the rules in that manner... anyways, if y'all are going to "try again", what do you pose be done to cure the "apathy" problem and get the membership involved and disspell the "paranoia" that its just a "power grab" on part of the BOD?

I was not on the Board at the time, so I can't speak for specific motivations, etc. I think if we try again, we probably need to specifically set out what we want to do and try and make a case for it with the membership. If I recall correctly (it's a little hazy), the folks who were against it were worried that the measure gave the Board very broad and non-specific authority to make changes in the way the whole process works. Although I think the Board's intentions were good, it was not perceived that way. Typical! Perhaps by being more focused and concise we can make it happen? My worry is that we still may not be able to get the sheer volume of votes required.
Although we haven't seriously discussed it as a Board, my initial feelings are:
1. Extend terms to three years (to save time and money).
2. Lower the requirements to get on the Board (either by reducing the number of signatures required or some other method).
3. Potentially enacting term limits.

We shall see at the next meeting who is on the new Board and if there is significant motivation to try and get this done.

Cheers,
--Q

-----
Chris "Q" Quaintance
ccqquaintance.com
D-23345

[ccq 0]

Quote

Thanks, Q... I was hoping you (and some of the other BOD members who are active on DZ.com) would chime in here. It was interesting to sit and chat with you a few weeks ago about your experience on the Board.

I'm happy to offer the insight I have. I will tell you that there is reluctance on the part of some Board members to get involved in these forums as things tend to turn nasty and argumentative which is very unproductive. Other Board members simply do not spend that much time online.

Quote

Didn't I hear that you got elected as a write-in candidate? How does that process differ from the "standard" process in terms of the requirements for the candidate, etc.? (I did look around the USPA site and can't seem to find anything about the election process/bylaws...maybe it's not there or maybe I'm not looking in the right place).

That is correct. I was elected through the write-in process. There were no other candidates for my region and the incumbent failed to properly submit his intentions to run for re-election.

The details of the election process can be found in section 3 of the Governance Manual, which is on the USPA site.
http://www.uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/Gov.Man.April06.pdf
Basically, to qualify for the ballot, you must either be an incumbent or get 10% of your region's members to sign your petition. Then, you pay $50 and submit a bio (which gets printed in Parachutist) and you get printed on the ballot. National Director candidates do not need those signatures. Write-in candidates need to do nothing but get an adequate number of votes. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to mount a write-in campaign versus another candidate who is listed on the ballot.

Quote

Thanks for that ... I posted this because I knew it would stir some interesting debate, but there does tend to be a lot of "well, I'd never do it but I'm going to bitch and moan about the person who does take the time to do the job." If USPA's gonna function as a representative organization, people have to get involved, even if it's just by exercising their vote.

Amen to that!

Quote

And yes, you'll definitely see me at the Prairie.

Excellent! See ya there.

Cheers,
--Q

-----
Chris "Q" Quaintance
ccqquaintance.com
D-23345

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

The details of the election process can be found in section 3 of the Governance Manual, which is on the USPA site.
http://www.uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/Gov.Man.April06.pdf
Basically, to qualify for the ballot, you must either be an incumbent or get 10% of your region's members to sign your petition. Then, you pay $50 and submit a bio (which gets printed in Parachutist) and you get printed on the ballot. National Director candidates do not need those signatures. Write-in candidates need to do nothing but get an adequate number of votes. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to mount a write-in campaign versus another candidate who is listed on the ballot.

Thanks for the link. The election process as it currently stands seems quite biased towards incumbents; while I can understand the need for *some* show of effort prior to putting your name on the ballot, 10% of the membership seems a bit steep, particularly considering how far-flung the membership in some regions can be.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

The election process as it currently stands seems quite biased towards incumbents; while I can understand the need for *some* show of effort prior to putting your name on the ballot, 10% of the membership seems a bit steep, particularly considering how far-flung the membership in some regions can be.

The BOD or at least some of them recogizne this and tried to get a change with a proxy vote the but enough members were too paranoid to send it in.

I really don't understand why they wouldn't send them in. Worst case senerio is they go on a power trip and change a bunch of stuff the members don't like, we either temporarily quit the USPA or we just don't elect them next time.

NWFlyer - you are one of the first people on here to actually research and not just speculate how the elections are run and then start ranting and raving and how stupid it is (which it could be better). kudo's to you!
j

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

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I remember the proxy vote issue and as I recall it was very loosely written.I think I was one of the paranoid ones.


.

[Elisha 1]

Quote

[NWFlyer - you are one of the first people on here to actually research and not just speculate how the elections are run and then start ranting and raving and how stupid it is (which it could be better). kudo's to you!
j

Yeah, I'd totally vote for her...over "Q". Nah, I wouldn't want to have to make that decision, but I would vote for you Krisanne.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I remember the proxy vote issue and as I recall it was very loosely written.I think I was one of the paranoid ones.


.

There were two separate proxy votes.

The first one was the one that essentially put all the power in the hands of the BOD.
That one failed and I was definitely against that one. Search rec.skydiving for details on that.

The second one was for specific changes. That one failed also for several reasons that I won't go into.
This one I was definitely in favor of and so was Mike Mullins. Search rec.skydiving for that one too.

Future proxy votes would have to have the proper education/explanation well in advance. It would also require 10% of the membership to cast votes on it.

Some sort of online voting system is being looked into by the Elections Comm. that could increase voter turnout.
But - don't hold your breath on that.
The 'other' way to get 10% or more of the membership to vote in an election is to have a BIG controversy of some sort.
In 2000 USPA had 5000 ballots cast. That was almost 15% of the membership.

PS - I am doing my part as an average weekend jumper getting elected to the BOD with your help.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

In 2000 USPA had 5000 ballots cast. That was almost 15% of the membership.

Jan, I must be getting old, ... I can't remember what the up-roar in 2000 may have been to get that turn-out... can you refresh my memory?? Thanks in advance.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

In 2000 USPA had 5000 ballots cast. That was almost 15% of the membership.

Jan, I must be getting old, ... I can't remember what the up-roar in 2000 may have been to get that turn-out... can you refresh my memory?? Thanks in advance.

That was when the rules said only 20 people could be on the ballot for ND and 22 people applied.
USPA cut two people and there was an uproar over the people that were cut. Really it was an uproar over one of the persons cut.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[EDYDO 0]

I am a week-end jumper and have filed an intent to run for Mid-Atlantic Director. I can understand why more people don't file.

The petition process as spelled out in the Governance Manual is not as difficult as the USPA and the Election Committee implement it. They stack the odds against week-end jumpers in favor of a DZO. Example: A DZO has access to the USPA member database and I do not. They will tell me nothing about membership status of those who have signed the petition. It is important when gathering signatures to know whether the signatures are indeed valid, in region signatures. They are trying to keep me in the dark as much as possible.

There are things that can be done without a proxy to make the system easier. I am surprised the Committee has not already looked into these problems. They seem quite oblivious when contacted.

The DZOs and members have been fantastic as I travel around the Region, but USPA has just put up hurdles. I soooooo want to be on the Nomination and Election Committee !!!!!

Concerning time and expense: The travel to drop zones is VERY expensive, but it is what I do anyway. It takes a lot of time to do the job as spelled out in the Governance Manual. Most Regional Directors do a poor job at "making a visible presence throughout the region". I wouldn't even consider it if I were not retired.

Blue Skies,

Ed

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

In 2000 USPA had 5000 ballots cast. That was almost 15% of the membership.

Jan, I must be getting old, ... I can't remember what the up-roar in 2000 may have been to get that turn-out... can you refresh my memory?? Thanks in advance.

That was when the rules said only 20 people could be on the ballot for ND and 22 people applied.
USPA cut two people and there was an uproar over the people that were cut. Really it was an uproar over one of the persons cut.

.

Ah, I guess I still don't recall that... my bad... anyway, is it still that way???

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

The details of the election process can be found in section 3 of the Governance Manual, which is on the USPA site.
http://www.uspa.org/publications/manuals.pdf/Gov.Man.April06.pdf
Basically, to qualify for the ballot, you must either be an incumbent or get 10% of your region's members to sign your petition. Then, you pay $50 and submit a bio (which gets printed in Parachutist) and you get printed on the ballot. National Director candidates do not need those signatures. Write-in candidates need to do nothing but get an adequate number of votes. For obvious reasons, it is difficult to mount a write-in campaign versus another candidate who is listed on the ballot.

So the write-in process doesn't appear to be very clearly articulated.

Can there be a write-in candidate for both National Director and Regional Director positions, or just Regional Director?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Can there be a write-in candidate for both National Director and Regional Director positions, or just Regional Director?

Both. Mike Mullins won as a write-in back in 2000(?).

Judy

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