Flyfunston

I found the voting members application form and can somebody explain it to me .Every body has been voting and I think more than 40% did not qualified to legally vote,
That guy ben has voted more than 4 times and I saw his waiver and he did not applied for a voting member he just donated $5.00 for the sticker I'm posting the form or waiver so let's hear all the
excuses and some other bull.We talked about bylaws and regulation and I know that I'm gona get a lot of bullshit excuses for not enforcing this rule./I could not post the waiver but look under regulations

I'm with you on this one Rafie. We have a strange mix of rules and traditions. The tradition is to allow anyone who attends the meeting to vote. The rules clearly state that only "voting members" can vote. I see the wisdom of allowing all members to express their opinion during the vote, but it makes the whole proceeding questionable. At the election in December, there were non-voting members at the meeting whose votes were probably counted in the balloting. In the close contests, this may have altered the results of the election.

If we wanted to enforce this rule, we would need to physically separate voting and non-voting members at the meeting, at least during the vote count. It's too tough during the hand count to keep track of everyone when voters are mixed with non-voters.

Ken Martin- VP

When Wayne and I agreed to pass out ballots and count votes, we were not deciding who could and could not vote - we relied on the honor system for that.

The evening had grown so contentious by then, it would have been suicide to start debating who could and could not vote - like KWM stated, we simply followed tradition, handed out ballots, then counted votes.

All the pilots listed in the December minutes voted, with the exception of Chris Ellis' daughter.

Thanks for bringing this up, Raffy.

~CRV

In the past the club officers ALWAY made sure that it was clear who was allowed to vote and who was not. But, I had the impression that in the December meeting some people were trying to stack the vote in there favor. And that is why the current administration did not even say anything.

That being said that means that the people that were voted in are NOT officially club officers and the VOTE has to be redone.

Any seconds to that motion?

Tim West

If we print out a list of voting members before each meeting, there will be people insisting they sent in the money, or try to pay right then. There are sometimes 6 month processing delays. It would be about 80% right on a good day. And how many people at the meeting last night paid 2014 dues before the meeting? Maybe an officer could step up and try to handle all this, but I wouldn't blame them if they think it's not feasible.

The 10 hour rule, and previously the 20 hour rule, has always been a rule that is unenforceable unless it's someone who clearly does not fly hang gliders. I'm not going to try to enforce a rule or bylaw that is unenforceable. It was never meant to be enforceable against fellow hang glider pilots.

It's up to the Board to decide who qualifies, and my vote would be that everyone is a voting member unless they are not a H3+ pilot or they can voluntarily attest to not having the 10 hours or not being paid up. Beyond that we aren't staffed to make a reasonable determination.

Dave

TimWest wrote:In the past the club officers ALWAY made sure that it was clear who was allowed to vote and who was not. But, I had the impression that in the December meeting some people were trying to stack the vote in there favor. And that is why the current administration did not even say anything.

That being said that means that the people that were voted in are NOT officially club officers and the VOTE has to be redone.

Any seconds to that motion?

Tim West

There have been tons of votes where nobody brought up the issue of who was voting members. I know it was brought up once in a while, like at some elections, but if done at elections it should be done for every other type of vote as well, and it hasn't been, not last year nor in recent years. In fact at the Dec 2012 elections, I remember a discussion and eventual agreement that everyone in the room qualified to vote even though it was known that there were new pilots there, and the election proceeded as such. Trying to do otherwise would not be fairly enforceable because of qualifications that can't be determined with any reasonable accuracy, as I just posted about.

Dave

Again let's go back to following the bylaws that's the way it is And the way it has to be

The purpose of the 20 hour rule, the rule was never properly changed to 10 hours and 20 hours remains in effect, was to insure that Funston is run by the pilots who regularly fly it. Since there is concern that some pilots claiming 20 hours may not have flown 20 hours, the bylaws allow club officers to resolve the claims. The best way for the officers to do this is to review a list of club members and determine who has flown 20 hours and qualified to vote. Those disqualified should be notified and given an opportunity to show that they have flown 20 hours. Pilots intentionally misstating the number of flying hours should be penalized by having their club memberships suspended or terminated.

I was surprised to learn that at the January meeting Ken Martin said he didn’t know how many hours he had flown at Funston. Last month he sent me an unsolicited e-mail claiming: ‘I am the only pilot who flies at Funston that actually knows how many hours he or she has flown this year at any flying site.” Ken’s e-mail below:

Dan Brown

"I wonder who is the source of all this documentation about how many hours I have flown at Funston when I am the only person who actually knows. The only information that has been revealed is that my flight computer only needed to be searched back to May to prove by recorded GPS track log that I had the minimum of 10 hours. I never said how many hours I have accumulated for the year. No one knows how many hours I have flown at Funston. I would suggest that I am the only pilot who flies at Funston that actually knows how many hours he or she has flown this year at any flying site. That this conversation is even occurring astounds me. Sociopathic behavior. Wild accusations. Unsubstantiated conclusions. Sounds like a witch hunt. McCarthyism. Those involved in this propagation of lies should be ashamed. I pity them for their lack of effective parenting. Those who would accept the lies at face value without considering the source are equally complicit.

kwm"

Dan Brown, who are your current clients within the flying community?

I think Dan's right.

I live in San Diego, but I've purchased a paid membership at least twice in the last 10 years. I understood that I would not be able to vote, and I accepted that as part of what keeps local pilots in charge of their own club.

In fact, the Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club has a similar rule. Voting members must have flown a hang glider at Torrey Pines at least once (yes, only once!!) in the last 3 years. The purpose, of course, was to keep our club from being overrun by the local PG crowd who would love to see us gone.

I think it's very reasonable for your club to have a 10 or even 20 hour limit. Even though it may be difficult to determine if a pilot has actually flown those hours, you'll surely know that an unrated pilot or a visiting pilot doesn't qualify ... and that includes me.

By the way, during my last trip, I had a great time trying to get my 20 hours in a 3 day span. I didn't make get the hours, but the air time was well worth the effort anyway.

Best wishes,
Bob Kuczewski

Whoever is a known HG pilot present at the meeting can vote.
Conversely ,
No one has ever been picked out and denied his or her chance to vote in a meeting.
an attempt was made at the Jan meeting to attack and discredit the Vice Prez. the McCarthy like tactic failed and wasted time .
The meeting was annoyed.
A room full of pilots doesn't want to entertain the dismantling of another pilot's reputation in a lynch mob scenario.
Chris V and Brian gave ballots to everyone present at the December 2013 elections , and allowed them to vote ,
as they should have.
Dan Brown ,you
have a different opinion. You do not attend , and are not a HG pilot.
therefore , your opinion matters little.
A pilot's word is considered sufficient.
In a meeting, Pilots are respected. sorry Dan, Attorneys and their clients are not.
The average HG Pilot is truthful , dependable , wise , and the Club needs their voting opinion.
Pilots , yes bring more pilots to the meeting, and fewer attorneys.

Charlie wrote: “Whoever is a known HG pilot present at the meeting can vote.” If everyone were honest as Charlie that should be the procedure. But everyone isn’t and that’s why there are rules and regulations. The Bylaws states, Art.V, Sec. 3, that the officers decide voting eligibility.

When a pilot claims that because of his GPS, he is the only pilot at Funston who knows exactly how many hours he has flown but in the following month says he doesn’t know how many hours he has flown, there is reasonable suspicion to believe a problem exists.

The present H.G. clients are Ward and Emily. I previously represented Brad and several of the pilots to whom USHGA sent “drug” letters. I also represented Mark during Urs’ long vendetta against him.

Dan Brown

Dan,

I was at the last club meeting and can testify that what you claim the pilot in question said is not what he actually did say. For the record, the pilot made it clear that he has no doubt that he has at least 30 hours at the Fort, so there is no problem as you might insinuate.

You were not at the meeting and are therefore working from hearsay. It is a shame that you were apparently misinformed, but that is no excuse. To cast suspicion on anyone based on hearsay is irresponsible. Fortunately for the pilot in question, when the truth comes out, your misstating of the facts only hurts your reputation and not his.

A good attorney should be able to make their case based on the facts, which they need to check out before staking their reputation on them. I've got confidence in you Dan, prove to everyone how good you really are!

i was at the meeting that pilot said he had 10.5 hours. steve again you are wrong.

Larry,
You are correct to a point. He did say he had x number of hours prior to a certain date on his GPS, but said he had over 30 hours TOTAL for the year. It is the year end total that is important.

still thing your wrong

There was a lot of side talking going on, maybe not everyone heard everything clearly.

As a result of the discussion at this month's meeting, the 2014 Board has reviewed the bylaw amendments that were voted on in Feb/Mar 2013 and made the decision yesterday that the amended 2013 bylaws shall stand.

The decision was based on factors that included in whole or in part the following opinions of various Board members:

- The changes that happened during the February 2013 meeting were not substantive
- The 2013 Board acted in good faith in following the bylaws
- The changes during the meeting were a result of open discussion
- Changes were historically made prior to vote at meetings prior to 2013
- Nobody made an objection to the procedure at any point until 10 months after the amendments were voted on and adopted

The Board's decision is final.

If a club member doesn't like this decision, he can follow the same bylaw procedures for proposing amendments again to raise the hourly requirement back to 20. If so, I'll propose a competing amendment to lower it to 5 hours. You can also follow the bylaw procedures for impeaching officers. Have at it.

Dave