USPA Proxy poll (Jan Meyer USPA BOD member poll)

[PhreeZone 20]

The following is a question posed by Jan Meyer, current USPA BoD member. (Shes having posting problems so I'm posting for her)

At the BOD meeting, the USPA BOD passed the following 3 motions that change how our elections work.

"Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA By-Laws by eliminating the National Director Nominating Committee and eliminating the Regional Director Candidate petition requirements."

"Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA By-Laws to make the term of office of USPA BOD members and officer's 3 years, such change to be effective with the USPA election held in 2004."

"Move to solicit members' proxies to change the USPA election schedule as follows:
August- Nomination of candidates
September- Publication of names of nominees
October- Ballot election by mail
November- Announcement of new USPA BOD.
Seating of new USPA BOD at the next scheduled BOD meeting."

Previous efforts over the past 6 years to make these changes have failed for several reasons. The proxy solicitation of two years ago failed primarily because the proxy put forth to the membership was too general. It had a loophole that would allow a future BOD to completely remove member participation in Constitutional changes.

USPA will present 3 specific proxies to the membership in the May issue of Parachutist. My understanding of this, when I left the BOD meeting, was that the proxy solicition would appear in the April, May and June issues. Unbeknownst to me, this changed to only the May issue. I learned about this change in publication frequency on March 14.

The space in the magazine for this is donated by Para-Gear. The proxy form will be on the insert that Para-gear has for their catalog. The printing of the proxy in this manner is at NO COST to USPA. Thank-you Para-Gear & Lowell Bachman. Apparently, HQ does not want the membership form missing from the mag for more than one month. That's the reason given to me for the change in publication schedule.

Back to the BOD meeting. The BOD did not unanimously approve these motions. Some of the reasons some Directors voted against these proxies was because we did not have the exact wording of the proxies, we did not specify who the proxies should be assigned to and we did not have the accompanying article drafted.

By NY law you may assign your proxy to any USPA member. That member may or
may not put forth your proxy vote at the GMM meeting in July.

Question is who would you like to see the proxy assigned to and why?

Quote

This straw poll is for informational purposes only. It does not reflect USPA policy.

A big thanks to Jan for passing this info along and attempting to understand the members better!

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Watcher 0]

Either Danny Page (a National Director) or
Richard Schachner (My regional Director).

I know them both personally and think they will do what is best for the organization.


--

Jonathan Bartlett
D-24876
AFF-I

[PhreeZone 20]

Personally I'd like to see a combo. Both the Full board or a write in slot. This allows the voter to either pick one or tell their ellected official to do it for them.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[PhreeZone 20]

BUMP since this seems to be ignored.

Every one compains "What does the USPA do for me?" Then when a question is asked its ignored

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[diverdriver 7]

Vote bump.

[wmw999 2,584]

Fill in the blank works, but having it be assignable to a single board member (either regional director or hte national director of our choice) works for me.

That gives me the feeling that I can exert some control over this.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)