Scrumpot 1 #1 July 11, 2003 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=561385;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread And let's people get some more proxies in!!! Remember, I am HAND CARRYING THEM as recieved by FAX to ANYBODY who you know will be at the meeting for you (including the USPA one to the president, Glen Bangs)! Fax #: 410-715-3484 Attn: Grant Your proxy does not have to be to ME Even send me your USPA one. I am going to the meeting and merely willing to HAND CARRY, and thereby DELIVER yours for you. Don't miss out. BE HEARD! Fax your USPA proxy NOW!coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #2 July 11, 2003 After calling over there, it sounds like this effort to establish a quorum is going down in bigger flames than the last one, i.e. they reportedly don't even have half the necessary proxies, so unless 1800 or so individual members show up in person or via hand-carried proxy, no business will be conducted at the GMM. It would have been funny if they had though. You see the proxy statements requested by USPA count towards a quorum, but limit voting to 3 specific issues. Upon establishing a quorum, an individual or BOD member could put forth any motion they wish and have it decided by only those members present or for whom blanket proxies are held. It could have been brutal...or awesome, depending on how the blanket proxies were distributed. :-) Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #3 July 14, 2003 You are unfortunately correct Dave, and in fact no business whatsoever took place at the GMM. After over 3 hours of driving in BRUTAL DC/N.VA rush-"hour" traffic & finally arriving there myself @ 20 minutes late, it turned out to be instead a total BUST! In fact, I arrived with my GRAND TOTAL of only 8 proxies (and 5 of those 8 from OUTSIDE of ANY "postings") really just in time to witness only the board having nothing else to do but recess to the bar. One side benefit though (for me) personally was meeting some of these people you only really see in Skydiving and Parachutist magazines & getting to sit relaxed, with absolutely no agenda & have a beer (or 2) with some of 'em. Thank you to those of you who actually did take the MINIMAL enough time & miniscule needed effort to actually CARE & who sent in (in one form or another) those proxies. You know who you are. To those of you who didn't... ...Well, I just do not know how to even begin to address the clearly apparent APATHY that our "community" seems to suffer from. I do sincerely hope that one day a situation does NOT arise that as one member of the board relayed to me as their observation/experience, that according to them the ONLY catalyst possible in their opinion, to get sufficient #'s of jumpers involved in ANYTHING would be only if it involved an overt threat of impairing the enormous freedoms we all currently enjoy (for the most part) in jumping as, and whenever we want. "Start to take away some of their freedoms & abilities to jump: then, and ONLY THEN will you see jumpers/members all of a sudden get involved." My .02 to that: We all need to be involved NOW. If that someday ever did come, IMHO a slow-to respond, merely reactionary involvement just AINT GONNA CUT IT people. This "experience" has indeed sobered me somewhat. Oh well, I can always just get out there & jump - Right? (which I did, both Saturday & Sunday BTW -Yeeha! THANK YOU USPA & INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO GIVE OF THEMSELVES & THEIR VALUABLE TIME TO PERSONALLY ENDEAVOR, TOIL AND PERSEVERE, WHICH IN NO SMALL PART IS THE REAL REASON THAT "ABILITY" IS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN (AND THOSE ONGOING FREEDOMS CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE) FOR ALL OF US IN THE 1ST PLACE!coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #4 July 14, 2003 I sent mine in. and tried to get those who I know to do the same. Hopefully they will understand the need to do so."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #5 July 15, 2003 Quote Thank you to those of you who actually did take the MINIMAL enough time & miniscule needed effort to actually CARE & who sent in (in one form or another) those proxies. You know who you are. To those of you who didn't... ...Well, I just do not know how to even begin to address the clearly apparent APATHY that our "community" seems to suffer from. I'm sorry to burst your bubble. I'm one of those that has very little faith and/or trust in our BOD. I did not send a proxy this time. Why? No, it wasn't "apathy" as you call it. It was a "no to everything" vote. That's right, without people like me to establish a quarum, it's automatically a no vote for any change. You call it Apathy, I call it a success.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #6 July 15, 2003 Mustard came to the dropzone with a handful of them and asked around and got everyone that didn't already vote to do it right at the dropzone before she hand-carries them to the meeting. It's nice to have regional directors that care.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #7 July 15, 2003 I would have been just as happy Jim, to take as many proxies as anybody would have been willing to give with "NO" votes affixed to 'em too. The fact is that without a quorum, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING get's done. NO BUSINESS at the meeting can transact whatsoever (new motions brought forward, debated then added to potential FUTURE meeting's agenda's, etc.) either. No sir, this was NOT a "success", by ANY stretch of the imagination. I submit not even for your position either.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
andy2 0 #8 July 15, 2003 what a joke --------------------------------------------- let my inspiration flow, in token rhyme suggesting rhythm... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #9 July 15, 2003 I don't entirely disagree there Andy... Only problem is, that as is, unfortunately, the "joke" ends up in the long run really, as being on ALL OF US! If it really is just such a joke, as you say; What do you propose then, to effectively change that?coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #10 July 15, 2003 Quote I would have been just as happy Jim, to take as many proxies as anybody would have been willing to give with "NO" votes affixed to 'em too. Yes, but those would have been "No" to specific motions, not "No" to anything the BOD submits AFTER the Term/Cycle/Petition motions. Jim is saying that by not helping establish a quorum, he was saying to the BOD "no you can't have a blank check with my signature at the bottom" Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #11 July 15, 2003 Quote Yes, but those would have been "No" to specific motions, not "No" to anything the BOD submits AFTER the Term/Cycle/Petition motions. Although it is conceivable, ...heck maybe even downright likely that once the quorum was established, that further motions (outside of the 3 specific ammendment proposals) may be made & maybe even raised to a vote. However, if you had given your proxy to SOMEONE YOU TRUST, and had REPRESENTATION AT THE MEETING, then this would be fully appropriate & in effect YOU COULD STILL VOTE (through your proxies) on that matter. Again, with NO QUORUM there was still NO BUSINESS even POSSIBLE, as a result; and I submit that this indeed was a failure. I never completely advocated that everybody send in their proxies as proffered by the USPA to either "the board" or the "USPA President" (as it was worded) either. However, I was trying (maybe too hard) to not take up an adversarial stance with ANYBODY relative to their potential positions in that regard. So if you feel you can not gain APPROPRIATE representation (either in person or by proxy) to effectuate APPROPRIATE vote(s) -as you see them, what then is the answer to this dilemma? Surely it can NOT just continue to be "block all further business" NO FURTHER BUSINESS, or NO FURTHER CHANGES/IMPROVEMENTS/VOTES to our organization's governing bi-laws EVER! I understand what was being said by the "statement". This is clearly a "broken system" then though (if you buy into that statement it can NEVER work then, right?). So what do you propose to fix it, other than continue down this path of "non-action"? ....which yet again I still continue to submit is NOT a "success"!coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #12 July 15, 2003 The old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it really comes to mind here. I'll admit there are quite a few quirks in our present system, but it does work. I had a problem with the 3 proposals. I didn't agree with them. To further this, I had no idea what else may have come up at the meeting, and by not being there, I'd have no say at all. I still call it a success.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #13 July 15, 2003 Okay then, where you won't "bite", here is what I thought might be a possible idea to get the system out of this apparent conundrum.... Have it written that ONLY those motions as PREVIOUSLY set (and disclosed) within the agenda may be voted on at any given GMM. Further, that any & all motions must be proffered to (and placed upon) the agenda within a reasonable pre-meeting time frame (say no closer than 30 days) in order to be validly VOTED upon (for final passage). This, to me I think could possibly solve BOTH sides of the equation, and maybe restore some confidence in our board & their processes. (?) If you review NY NCPL you will note that there ALREADY IS a provision for agenda notifications to be provided by no later than within 30 days of the scheduled meeting. The way I read it, your objections/concerns (and not invalid one's at that -we AGREE!) are for those items that could come up AT THE MEETING as unknowns (once a quorum is established of course). -Motions that would be proffered then PASSED right then & there ON THE SPOT without any further effective membership say, input or prior review. This can most certainly be quite consistent with addressing that. ...Would something like this quell individual members fears/concerns? #1. You would still need a quorum (10% of the membership) in order to effectuate a VOTE (and then ONLY upon items which were KNOWN FULLY in advance) at the meeting. then... #2. Any new motions brought then at that meeting to the table could NOT be voted upon for potential enactment until the NEXT scheduled meeting. Giving EVERYBODY fair chance & provision to review, debate, then final decide as should be. What then would you think of something like that?coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RevJim 0 #14 July 15, 2003 It's not a bad idea, but the hitch in the idea is the same (basically) as I stated before. You could come up with 20 changes I would love to see, but tack one on there that I don't want, and guess what, no proxy. I would guess that it would be the same for alot of others also. The only way to be sure a particular motion failed would be to ensure the lack of a quorum. Honestly, without holding a GMM at a very large boogie (like Rantoul), I doubt we will ever see a quorum. In actuality, I hope we never see another proxy solicitation from the USPA either. The money wasted on that would be better served to offset the rising cost of insurance.It's your life, live it! Karma RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #15 July 15, 2003 Quote You could come up with 20 changes I would love to see, but tack one on there that I don't want, and guess what, no proxy. That just does not make any sense, Jim. Aren't you thereby subrogating precisely what VOTING, and more generally the democratic process then in of itself should be all about? By handcuffing the very system so as to totally PRECLUDE even the possibilty for any change (or improvement), I still submit THAT by it's very definition is a system which is BROKE, and thereby inevitably doomed to total & utter failure. It's just a matter of time (on it's current "status quo" course)! I do still think that we have an avenue by which to "FIX" it now, and further, that we should. Anything short of that is simply defeatist attitude IMHO. -And a self-fulfilling prophecy. Edited to correct silly, simple doofus spelling errors! coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MakeItHappen 15 #16 July 15, 2003 Quote That just does not make any sense, Jim. Aren't you thereby subrogating precisely what VOTING, and more generally the democratic process then in of itself should be all about? By handcuffing the very system so as to totally PRECLUDE even the possibilty for any change (or improvement), I still submit THAT by it's very definition is a system which is BROKE, and thereby inevitably doomed to total & utter failure. It's just a matter of time (on it's current "status quo" course)! I do still think that we have an avenue by which to "FIX" it now, and further, that we should. Anything short of that is simply defeatist attitude IMHO. Grant, personally asked me to reply to this thread: Pandora's Box of Proxies I will no longer present history, pros/cons for the specific proxies or debate the merits on these, as it is a moot point now. Besides, all of that info has already been posted by me in several places. The key to the proxies is the future - not the past. Our future will be that a handful of people will collect proxies, valid for whatever time period needed, until they (as a group) have a quorum. This could be one person collecting 3500 proxies or a number of people collecting 3500 among them. Once this group of people realize they have a quorum (collectively), they will ask for such-n-such motion be put on the GMM Agenda. At the GMM, the people with the proxies can cast their proxy votes however they see fit. They will be able to make changes. The power to change things will be in the hands of the (few) people with the proxies. That is our future because not enough individual members did not state how they wanted the specfic issues to go. Members were demanding specific proxies after the first one. That's what USPA gave you and you blew it off. You may whine & cry all about this or that about this year's SPECIFIC proxy, but the future hand will be played out as I describe. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #17 July 15, 2003 Quote The power to change things will be in the hands of the (few) people with the proxies. That is our future because not enough individual members did not state how they wanted the specfic issues to go. Members were demanding specific proxies after the first one. That's what USPA gave you and you blew it off. You may whine & cry all about this or that about this year's SPECIFIC proxy, but the future hand will be played out as I describe. Thanks Jan, yet again for being so responsive! As we've discussed now in several different arena's, the one thing I have learned from this entire experience is that there are indeed a FEW of us who have honorable intentions for what USPA represents, is now, and what it CAN BE (or potentially evolve to -or NOT) in the future. I do believe you are one of those people. Unfortunately, there also may be a FEW of us with somewhate less than fully honorable intents, or at the very least more individualistically "personal" agenda's let's say, that they may wish to further ply. If this scenario indeed DOES play out as you describe, IMHO the MEMBERS (each and every INDIVIDUAL who did NOT get involved -in SOME way) has nobody else to blame or then further "grouse" about (or to) but THEMSELVES! On that note, I will again simply drop back into the shadows (as if I ever really emerged from them! ) ...and go right on back to just skydiving with my "family". No matter how dysfunctional (or again as I assert -yes, I still do Jim assert, with limited few exceptions: APATHETIC) most of them may be. Blue Skyz all. I now return you to your regularly scheduled talk-back hodge-podge of dead kittens, man-eating penis' and other various assundry of "Most Entertaining" (to plagerize a term) topics posted. Apologies for the interuption.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #18 July 15, 2003 Quote If this scenario indeed DOES play out as you describe, IMHO the MEMBERS (each and every INDIVIDUAL who did NOT get involved -in SOME way) has nobody else to blame or then further "grouse" about (or to) but THEMSELVES! Just because a member does not get involved in this method, does not mean that they are not involved. I think that jumpers should get to know their RD and talk to them about any concerns. If people show a legitimate interest, and are not just being buttheads, then they will usually get a valid response. "Grousing" does raise issues. I agree that doing nothing beyond that is pointless. Quote Unfortunately, there also may be a FEW of us with somewhate less than fully honorable intents, or at the very least more individualistically "personal" agenda's let's say, that they may wish to further ply. Usually these people are pretty easy to spot. They remind you of a "conspiracy" theorist. The "everyone is evil" attitude. People of this type usually go beyond non-productive into counter-productive. Since some mask their intents, I encourage new people to ask around. See what people with time-in-sport think about them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #19 July 15, 2003 Quote Since some mask their intents, I encourage new people to ask around. See what people with time-in-sport think about them. I think some people might REALLY FOOL YOU. ...And no, I don't think we are on the same page with that. There are a couple of really "popular" BOD members, that given the right set of circumstances and open doors of opportunity, I think might really (and potentially) surprise you. That is the danger though. Neither you, or I, can really until it is inevitably too late, ever REALLY KNOW. And right now unfortunately, we just DON'T (this is a fact upon which I think we all agree) have the appropriate protections in place to pre-empt such real possibility.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scrumpot 1 #20 July 15, 2003 Quote Just because a member does not get involved in this method, does not mean that they are not involved. I think that jumpers should get to know their RD and talk to them about any concerns. If people show a legitimate interest, and are not just being buttheads, then they will usually get a valid response. Then indeed, I agree ...that person DID get involved. (in SOME way). We are on the same page.coitus non circum - Moab Stone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #21 July 15, 2003 You misunderstood, I wasn't necessarily speaking of BOD members that I need to be protected from. I have spent some time talking to people, reading articles, even wreck dot. A period of years, not months, or one-article opinions. I have seen some differences between the "public image" and the actions. That is how I make my decisions. Talking to a variety of people is the best way to get a valid picture. That is what I encourage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
