Flyfunston

And just in case there was any doubt, now you'll get to see how Tom operates.

Here's a curious question... if Tom manages to keep others off the ballot, but gets zero votes running unopposed, then what?

Re: Tom's comments about applicable years:

TR>If we use definition one then for this election it refers to 2011. If we use definition 2 it refers to 2012.
TR>It doesn't seem to make sense to me that we we go back two years to look at a persons record. It makes more sense to look from now backwards one year. But it is ambiguous and open to either interpretation.

Voting privileges, as with membership, are given out every year and are valid from January 1 (or when you do the paperwork) to December 31. They are not pro-rated, and they all expire on December 31st, not a year from when you sign the papers. Voting privileges are not approved per vote. This is proven out by this bit:

"the year in which they are entitled to vote."

The club goes back to the last full year (CY2011) in determining whether a pilot has the right to vote in the current year (CY2012).

You're welcome to ask Dan Brown to confirm if you disagree. You're not going to get a better answer than one from him.

TR>I haven't seen them out there last year or this year amounting to twenty hours, and I don't know of anyone else who has either.

I personally think this should be on the honor system, but you obviously don't. Though you clearly have an opinion on this, there is a way to reach resolution now that you have entered your comments. This is not something that can be decided by presidential fiat. Per the bylaws,

"By majority vote the Executive Committee shall determine whether members are voting or non-voting. In making its determination, the Executive Committee shall consider logs, pilot statements and all other relevant information. "

Have two votes by the EC on the following items: "Steve is a voting member based on the evidence provided", and "Tom is a voting member based on the evidence provided".

Excluding Tom and Steve, there are 5 people on the Executive Committee.

* If 3 or more of them vote that Steve and/or Tom are voting members, Steve and Tom are voting members without S+T needing to vote.
* If only 1 votes that Steve and/or Tom are voting members, Steve and Tom are not voting members, since S+T's votes would not tip the scales.
* If exactly 2 vote that Steve and/or Tom are voting members, there is a hole in the Bylaws because it's the matter at hand whether S+T can vote

In this situation, it doesn't even matter if you allocate yourself two votes, so argue about that another time.

Daniel

Just so the rest of the club knows what happened tonight -
The Executive Committee, at the behest of Steve R, held a meeting - first at the clubhouse where the rangers kicked them out then at the Boulevard.
I have repeatedly indicated my objection to this closed meeting making decisions without the club membership opportunity to discuss.
Over my repeated objections, the EC decided to:
Rescind two of the 3 waivers, and replace them with Tracey and Patrick P.
Steve & Tom W can vote because we have always had the "honor" system, so that entitles them to vote if they say so.
They believe that the club rules entitle them to take these actions.

So if you believe its fine for a group of people who almost never fly at the Fort to run the club, then by all means, vote for Tracey!
Personally I am disgusted by this blatant abuse of power.
I have always stood up for an open and democratic process for our club. This is NOT democracy. I have no interest in being president - the only reason I am running is to speak up for those who don't want to or are afraid to come to the meetings or because they don't want to have to deal with these lies, distortions, and abuses of power. I've been accused of the same thing. I did not personally witness any of Steve's suspensionable activities. But I had numerous long time pilots who know what they are doing who witnessed these events and brought these issues to my attention. I held back for the first two events - I wanted to give Steve the benefit of the doubt. But after the third one I realized these where WAY over the top and he needed to realize the gravity of what he was doing. Doesn't seem like he has learned that lesson.

Both of those people asked to be taken off the "waived" list in the past two days. The EC was to vote on respecting those requests, not to "rescind" them unilaterally.

"Tom W & Steve claim to have voting rights despite my objection that they also do not have the 20 hour requirement as they invoked the “honor” system. "

Your concerns should be recorded, but they don't stand alone. The bylaws take objections into account but call for a vote of the EC on exactly this matter. Did you take a vote? You should, just to stick to the rules and not play favorites.

As for "what good have these people done", here are some verifiable specifics off the top of my head. FF members should not be vilifying people who do this much for the site, even if you disagree on a few topics:

* spent dozens of hours installing new racks when the old ones were collapsing a few years ago
* installed the webcam in the clubhouse wall so we could all enjoy the view and get a good idea of how the flying is going to be
* painted a warning line around the entrance to the clubhouse so non-flying visitors no longer block the door
* installed various warning signs to reduce interference with the public
* ensured the antennas from the Ocean Currents Monitoring project did not encroach on the flying airspace
* moved the clubhouse waiting list to an online place where everyone can see them, cleared out a couple dozen spots, and made the waitlist first-come-first-serve (with public voting for exceptions) instead of shelf-for-favors
* reduced our rent/fees significantly over what the GGNRA was proposing, by valuing repairs the club makes on site that help us anyway

tom rust wrote:Steve & Tom W can vote because we have always had the "honor" system, so that entitles them to vote if they say so.

Really? Can I vote under that same provision? Didn't think so.

So if you believe its fine for a group of people who almost never fly at the Fort to run the club, then by all means, vote for Tracey!

If I could I would. I don't know Tracey, but I know that when I find myself back in more of an HG phase there will be a lower likelihood that the fort is still open to flying if you manage to get elected.

Personally I am disgusted by this blatant abuse of power.

Look up "irony".

I have always stood up for an open and democratic process for our club.

See above.

I have no interest in being president

I think most would agree that you seem to be willing to do anything to keep that position. Interesting that you feel you have to make sure you run unopposed to stand a chance.

the only reason I am running is to speak up for those who don't want to or are afraid to come to the meetings...

Really? Are you going to speak up for me - or are you going to have me arrested on-sight?

What do you suppose it is that makes the FF act like guests on the Jerry Springer show? Have you ever noticed how WOR and BAPA run their organization? They never have even a hint of the drama you guys offer on a monthly basis.

“Calendar year” is the twelve months preceding the meeting in which the member votes. To require 20 hours in the year of the vote results in few members eligible to vote in some meetings. For example requiring 20 hours flying in 2013 to vote in 2013 meetings means only a few members voting in January and February meetings.

Whether a pilot has flown 20 hours is basically by the honor system. Most pilots are honest particularly when flying is a public act. Even flyin-canuck, who dislikes the requirement, admitted he had less than 20 hours. Logs, statements, etc come into play when the pilot's claim is challenged and then the pilot has the burden to prove he has 20 hours.

I have been away from the Fort for several years and don’t feel qualified to comment on the merits of the officer candidates. I know from experience that the President must be a strong, respected pilot not afraid to make enemies by suspending pilots for flying violations and that the officers must support each other. In the early days of 2000 I probably suspended more pilots than all other Presidents combined. The Safety Officer was Urs and though we had differences, we worked together. Order was restored, flying rules observed and the site preserved.

Rules are followed only when applied equally and without favoritism.

Tom wrote: "I have repeatedly indicated my objection to this closed meeting making decisions without the club membership opportunity to discuss."

Per the Bylaws, the EC voted to have an OPEN meeting. You would have known that had you paid attention, either by reading the EC email or simply by showing up on time instead of the last 15 or 20 minutes of a 2 hour meeting.

*inappropriate comment reported by BobK, deleted by SR, 8-20-2014*