Flyfunston

Our club bylaws state that in order to be a voting member or hold a club director position, a pilot must have flown for 20 hours in the year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote. We elected to waive the 20 hour requirement for several people - Chuck Kranz, who also acts as Technical director, Dan Pifko, and Mark Lilledahl. This is the maximum allowed by our bylaws - 3 people - there cannot be any more. As there were two resignations earlier this year, we voted to allow Steve & Tom White to take over for safety officer & secretary. But the board never explicitly voted that that they could be voting members - only club officers - and indeed our club bylaws dictate that they can NOT be voting members on either club business or elections as we already have the maximum number of waived voting members (3). Also, we have been taking voting tallies at meetings, but have not been checking to see if those people meet the 20 hour requirement to be voting members.
I've assumed an honor system and those not eligible would not vote, but in retrospect I know there are people who have been counted who should not have been. I'm afraid this calls into question several issues on which the club has voted.
For example, in the last meeting Steve held a vote to allow the exclusion for 3 more members of the 20 hour rule. The club membership voted on this. First of all, only the directors are allowed to vote on waivers of the 20 hour rule and we are only allowed to have 3 members waived, and we already have 3 that are waived. Instead the entire group voted. I was very tired at this meeting so was not thinking of this issue. So this vote must be nullified. These 3 people are NOT voting members – Gwaenel, Jacque, and Tracey.

In the upcoming election, those who do not have the 20 hours are not eligible to be voted for as directors. This includes Steve, Tom W, and Tracey. They also cannot vote for directors. If there is a question as to whether a person has the 20 hours, only the Executive Directors can vote on whether they do, and Steve and Tom cannot vote as explained above. This is again per our bylaws.

We will be taking a more stringent position at the election meeting next week. Each person voting must present their folded ballot before the ballot taker. The ballot taker must be certain the person voting is either one of the 3 waived or has the 20 hours of flying time to be a voting member. The ballot taker must also check to see that it is only one ballot. There will be no votes to "allow" waivers of the 20 hour rule, as I indicated we already have the limit.

The 20 hour rule was rightly instituted to help ensure that those who are regularly flying at the Fort are entitled to a vote, and those that do not meet this requirement cannot. I discussed this issue with the regular pilots last weekend when there was a bit of flying to be had, and the opinion was unanimous that this rule should be enforced. It may become the case that we cannot get enough people to volunteer to be directors. California law only requires two officers - President and Secretary. If necessary officers can hold multiple titles. By far the two most time consuming & difficult jobs are president & clubhouse manager - with a close second as the treasurer. So we should at least have these 3 people. And as long as Chuck is willing to do IT that will be taken care of. All other positions can be doubled up if needed. Charlie sounds like he will do clubhouse mgr again. Thanks Charlie, its a tough job.
We'll take any additional nominations at the beginning of the meeting, then hold the vote.

this 20 hour rule seems like nothing more than those that are able to fly funston all the time to keep it as their private little site

what about those of us that don't fly funston all the time

For those that fly half a dozen or more sites a year, 20 hours at one site is alot

flyin_canuck wrote:this 20 hour rule seems like nothing more than those that are able to fly funston all the time to keep it as their private little site

what about those of us that don't fly funston all the time

For those that fly half a dozen or more sites a year, 20 hours at one site is alot

I share this concern. Is there any other HG club in the world with such a high requirement for voting membership? Maybe this rule is from back when it was soarable 250 days a year (so they say) and there were twice as many pilots? I suggest we explore the idea of lowering the minimum hours for voting members, or otherwise modifying the requirement, to be more inclusive of weekenders who only make it out to Funston a few times a year.

What's the point of waiving the requirements for anybody at all? Why was this loophole even part of the bylaws? Why have this complication? If we need more voting members to fill officer positions or whatever, why not be inclusive to more pilots instead of discouraging most pilots from even coming to meetings because they can't vote, and then making a backroom plan to have an unannounced vote at a meeting to get specific pilots through the loophole? It's so shady.

Dave

Dear Tom R ,
you were wise to have accepted votes on the following basis
(in your words)
'I've assumed an honor system and those not eligible would not vote'
it's a very long standing policy and works well.
any pilot who shows up at a meeting, has been ,should be, and will in the future be, given a slip of paper to vote for officers ( if they're one of flying brethren)
I think every pilot who reads this , knows what a 'Funston' pilot is. and how we smell.
Looking at this coins other side, it would be considered an extremely rare circumstance for a 'pilot from the outside' ,to show up and try to vote who was not known to everyone or most every body at the meeting.
any other policy would be considered an unwelcome change by every pilot I know.
Tom , if you attempt to invoke this new voting rule at the next meeting, it will have a very damaging effect on our Club.
let the pilots vote as they always have.

Tom,
Your interpretation of the club Bylaws is wrong on multiple levels.
I will address your misinterpretations one by one. You made so many wrong statements that this reply has turned out to be quite long. I apologize to our members but can only point to the source of this misinformation.

Tom wrote: “We elected to waive the 20 hour requirement for several people - Chuck Kranz, who also acts as Technical director, Dan Pifko, and Mark Lilledahl. This is the maximum allowed by our bylaws - 3 people - there cannot be any more.”
Our Bylaws state in Article IV, Section 2: snip..."By majority vote the Executive Committee may waive the 20-hour flying requirement to allow members who have made contributions to flying at Fort Funston to become voting members. The Executive Committee shall not waive the flying requirement for more than 3 members at any one time."
I draw our attention to the language "at any one time". This clearly means at any one meeting, NOT the entire year as you would have us believe.

Tom wrote: “we voted to allow Steve & Tom White to take over for safety officer & secretary. But the board never explicitly voted that that they could be voting members - only club officers - and indeed our club bylaws dictate that they can NOT be voting members on either club business or elections”
The Bylaws also state in Article V, Section 2: “Voting members shall be pilots who have flown hang gliders at Fort Funston for more than 20 hours in the calendar year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote.”

Your argument is not valid because the board didn’t need to vote that Tom White and I would be voting members. We were already voting members in our own right because we both flew more than 20 hours in the preceding calendar year!

Tom wrote: “I've assumed an honor system and those not eligible would not vote, but in retrospect I know there are people who have been counted who should not have been.”
Of course you assumed the honor system, that is all we have to go on. If a pilot says they flew 20 hours, then unless we have undisputable evidence otherwise, we must accept their word. The alternative might be to make it mandatory that every Funston pilot keep a log book. But even then we rely on the honor system to fill out their log. Tom, you are not entitled to decide who does or does not have their hours.

Tom wrote: “in the last meeting Steve held a vote to allow the exclusion for 3 more members of the 20 hour rule. The club membership voted on this. First of all, only the directors are allowed to vote on waivers of the 20 hour rule and we are only allowed to have 3 members waived, and we already have 3 that are waived. Instead the entire group voted. I was very tired at this meeting so was not thinking of this issue. So this vote must be nullified. These 3 people are NOT voting members – Gwaenel, Jacque, and Tracey.”
You are correct in that only the EC can vote to waive the 20 hour requirement. The entire EC was at the last meeting and it was the EC's majority vote that waived the 20 hour rule for those in question. So per our Bylaws, Gwenhael and Tracey are in fact voting members.

Tom wrote: “In the upcoming election, those who do not have the 20 hours are not eligible to be voted for as directors. This includes Steve, Tom W, and Tracey.”
As I previously stated, Tom White and I flew more than 20 hours and are voting members in our own right. Tracey had her 20 hours waived in a legal vote by the EC. All three of us are voting members.

Tom wrote: “The ballot taker must be certain the person voting is either one of the 3 waived or has the 20 hours of flying time to be a voting member.”
Again, who are you to dispute the honor system and judge if someone can vote or not? If anyone can be judge than I could, for instance, dispute your 20 hours and disqualify you from voting or holding office! Of course this is a ridiculous idea, just as is your idea to disregard another pilots honesty and integrity.

Tom wrote: “There will be no votes to "allow" waivers of the 20 hour rule, as I indicated we already have the limit.”
The Bylaws do not specify any limit to the total number of 20 hour requirements that can be waived. The only limit is that no more than 3 can be waived at any one time. The majority of the EC can, should they so desire, waive the 20 hour requirement for up to three people at the next meeting.

Tom wrote: “The 20 hour rule was rightly instituted to help ensure that those who are regularly flying at the Fort are entitled to a vote,”
The 20 hour requirement was NOT as you say, written to ensure Funston regulars are entitled to a vote. Nor was it intended to keep valid hang glider pilots from participating in our clubs democratic process. The 20 hour requirement was written by Dan Brown, the author of our Bylaws. The reason for this requirement is politically sensitive so I will be happy to enlighten anyone who attends our meetings or contacts me directly.

Tom wrote: “California law only requires two officers - President and Secretary.”
California law would apply if our Bylaws did not specify otherwise, but this is not the case. Our Bylaws clearly list the 7 positions of our Board of Directors. While the other Directors may assume the duties of a missing Director, no Director may actually hold more than one position, and no Director shall have more than one vote. This is stated in California law and is not addressed in our Bylaws. Therefore California law prevails: One Director, One Vote.

I want to make a personal statement in regard to the 20 hour requirement: I believe it is an abuse of power to use the 20 hour requirement to disqualify well known and respected members of our club from voting. This is a blatant violation of our democratic process.

It is of utmost importance that everyone understands why the 20 hour requirement was created to begin with. Hint: It was NOT to keep hang glider pilots from voting! Again, come to the meeting or contact me for the facts.

Everyone: If you care about democracy in our club, please attend the next meeting. It is important that you speak up and make your vote count.

Thanks for everyone’s patience in plowing through this mess! Hope to see you at 7:30 PM next Tuesday, December 11.

As the primary author of the bylaws and the flying requirement, I want to clarify a few issues.

1. The 20 hour requirement was put in the bylaws when Mark was the president. Since the Club runs Funston, we wanted to make certain the Club was run by hang glider pilots who regularly fly at Funston. This is the same as residency requirements in all local, state and federal elections. You can’t vote for the mayor of S.F. unless you are a resident. Like all the other bylaws, the 20 hour requirement may be modified or eliminated by the members.

2. We allowed 3 exceptions for the 20 hour requirement. The thinking was that there were individuals who may not fly at Funston 20 hours or who do not fly at all but make significant contributions to the site. We wanted to acknowledge their contributions and encourage their participation.

3. The bylaws allow only 3 “at any one time” exceptions to the 20 hour rule. This obviously means there can’t be more than 3 “at any one time”. The exceptions would have no meaning if the officers continuously granted 3 exceptions. They could not hold a meeting, grant 3 exceptions, hold another meeting, grant 3 more, etc. Theoretically hundreds of exceptions could be granted in this matter.
Rules must be given their common sense interpretation. The only way club officers could grant an exception if the three exceptions were filled is to revoke one of the exceptions creating a vacancy allowing the selection of a new third exception.

I was president in 2000 when we came close to losing the site. Club meetings had degenerated to near mob rule, pilots were not allowed to express opinions without being shouted down, abusive language was common, good people did not want to serve as officers and at several meetings, the GGNRA had an armed ranger attend. If the Club cannot govern itself in a civil manner and enforce flying rules, pilots will go to the GGNRA with their disputes and the Club will be redundant.

Theoretically hundreds of exceptions could be granted in this matter.
Rules must be given their common sense interpretation.

Wouldn't common sense suggest that there are not going to be hundreds even asking for an exception

So rules should be given their common sense interpretation even though there is no common sense justification for the rules

How about there just not be rules written into the bylaws that go against the spirit of hang gliding....Is there even one other club in the whole of the US that has a minimum # of hours to be a voting member

Mr Rust,

I would like to correct your mistaken assumption that I did not have 20 hours in the year 2011, in fact I did.

Did you actually fly 20 hours in that year?

I will be voting at the election on Tuesday. See you there.

Tom White, Secretary, Fellow Feathers Hang Gliding Club

tom rust wrote:Our club bylaws state that in order to be a voting member or hold a club director position, a pilot must have flown for 20 hours in the year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote...Also, we have been taking voting tallies at meetings, but have not been checking to see if those people meet the 20 hour requirement to be voting members...

By what means does the club verify a pilot has flown 20 hours?

The ballot taker must be certain the person voting is either one of the 3 waived or has the 20 hours of flying time to be a voting member.

By what means will the ballot taker be verifying those who vote have flown 20 hours?

Oh, I get it...the honor system...works everytime and is very reliable.

The 20 hour rule was rightly instituted to help ensure that those who are regularly flying at the Fort are entitled to a vote, and those that do not meet this requirement cannot. I discussed this issue with the regular pilots last weekend when there was a bit of flying to be had, and the opinion was unanimous that this rule should be enforced.

The "regular pilots" have spoken...then that is the path we shall take...so, the only people voting will be those with their log book in hand as proof of their "voting hours"?

Hey, a rule is a rule, but for it to be enforced, it must be enforced fairly - just like we've always done with the 25-foot rule, and taking action against those who jeopardize their own safety and the safety of others.

And everyone is worried about paragliders taking over...

Chris

PS: My log book can be sent to the Board as proof of my "voting hours" upon request before Tuesday night's meeting...for the record, I've flown 45 hours at Funston this year.

"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." Article V, Sec. 2

Thank you Dan for clarifying the 20 hour rule. So its clear, the 20 hour rule dictates that we can currently have only 3 waived members. We can’t keep adding them. We HAVE the 3 members, there cannot be more.
So all of my previous statements stand.

Regarding eligibility of the Steve , Tom W, or Tracey to vote or hold director positions in the upcoming elections, the 20 hour rule is being applied for the year preceding now.
Over the last two years I have spent an average of 4 days out of every week at the Fort. I’ve been there for almost every flyable day. I have NOT seen either Steve or Tom W or Tracey flying anywhere close to 20 hours. Granted I am not there every day, but I have asked the other pilots who ARE there every flyable day, and they concur – these people do not have the 20 hours to qualify as voting members.

Chris V there is no question you have the 20 hours.

Regarding and emergency EC meeting. Steve is trying to call for an emergency Executive Committee meeting. I see no need for this, and find it again an attempt to abuse the power given us by the club to try to act behind their back. If you have something to say, say it in front of the rest of the membership on Tuesday.

At the club meeting there will be one item only – the elections. If you disagree with the 20 hour rule fine! Get the club to change the bylaws. Again, to change the bylaws there must be 2 consecutive meeting votes of 2/3 of the club voting membership to change the bylaws. And to be one of the voting members you must have the 20 hours of flying at the Fort in the preceding year.

Regarding Tracey -
I think those who were not at the last meeting should know, at this meeting the vote to allow Tracey to be eligible for the "waiver" was based on her offer to act as treasurer, to take over Vans position. Yet afterwards she has changed her tune and now wants to run for president. In sales they call this "bait and switch", and at least in the real world, this is an illegal practice.

Tom R.,

I flew more than 20 hours at Fort Funston in 2011. I am a voting member as is Tom White. Your arguments are very transparent and you do not have the right to arbitrarily disqualify those whom you perceive to be your political opponents.

The Executive Committee is exactly that: a committee. In spite of your belief that you have ultimate power, you are only one person on the committee and have only one vote. If the majority of the EC believes an emergency meeting is needed then we have the right to hold it and you do not have the right to veto it.

Our goal is to resolve your contentious statements before the regular club meeting so as not to disrupt the regular proceedings with your drama. We want the EC to have solid conclusions such that the elections can be held in a calm and responsible environment, and not have it be like the Art meetings that you let turn into mob rule.

The bylaws state: "A report of all Executive Committee meeting will be given by the President at the next regular meeting." It is the Presidents responsibility to attend, see you there!

Tom R , you've got to stop this nonsense . You know perfectly well that the FF Club is going to let Steve R and Tom White , Tracey, and everyone else there, vote on Tuesday. pilots can get testy when somebody tries to take away their vote.

Regarding Tracey -
I think those who were not at the last meeting should know, at this meeting the vote to allow Tracey to be eligible for the "waiver" was based on her offer to act as treasurer, to take over Vans position. Yet afterwards she has changed her tune and now wants to run for president. In sales they call this "bait and switch", and at least in the real world, this is an illegal practice.

Tom, its not clear what exactly your point is (well it probably is, just giving you the benefit of the doubt)

Are you saying that Tracey's reason for wanting a waiver matter
Are you saying that you are ok with Tracey getting a waiver IF she wanted to be treasurer but are not if she wants to be president (if you are not saying this then your post was pointless)

Just for the record I did not fly 20 hours in 2011 or 2012....(maybe 10 to 15 in 2011, due to work travel I have not even flown 20 hours in 2012)
I will not attempt to vote....but I do have an interest in the club, and I see nothing in Tom R's position that is in anyway helpful to the club

flyin_canuck wrote:I see nothing in Tom R's position that is in anyway helpful to the club

I can tell you that no one has put the site in greater jeopardy than Tom Rust in recent years. Good luck with the vote (those of you that get to vote).

Tom Rust,
​Everything I've read from you here seems to have one and only one common factor... Tracey.

You discovered she is running for president. That she may have a chance this election. For years and up until the very minute you discovered her desire to run for President she has been a close friend of yours. Every pilot that reads this post know Tracey as a Funston pilot.

Tracey has been to almost every club meeting and has always actively participated in them. Like that is not enough she gave up her flying day at the last air race to help our club. On this only racing day of the year she even had her glider setup and ready to go if she was able to break away from her duties... She really wanted to fly but what did she do?. She let other Funston members fly her glider including myself. That is the type of person I and many others... Including yourself know her to be!

​You had no problem casting your vote along side the entire EC board including our Secretary and Safety Officer until now...
You had no problem casting your vote to waive the 20 hour rule until now...

Tracey has been on the receiving end of your Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) campaign long enough Tom. It's time to put a stop to the machiavellian machinations, the politics and the stressful chaos and start seeking ways to work together and help one another. It's ironic and sad to see so many arguments when I'm sure every pilot would agree on the two most important things which are to be able to continue to enjoy our club friends and soar above this beautiful coast.

​Tom - it's time you stand up and do the right thing... For you as well as all of us.
​As the current President of our club you should be finding ways to bring us together not tear us apart.

Sincerely,
Patrick Pannese
Voting club member
USHPA 88825

So far I have heard nothing that refutes my position.

Steve has given no valid reason for why this important issue should have a special EC meeting held. It’s clear all you want to do is try to make decisions again without the clubs input.
You talk about “mob” rule. This “mob” is the club members! It seems to me you denigrate the very people you are entrusted to serve as a club director. The club membership as a whole should have the opportunity to hear all arguments and be an active part in all decisions made by the EC.
I personally find this whole aspect of our club rules a poor idea. There is nothing in our club business that couldn’t be decided by club membership vote. This aspect of having an Executive Committee that gets to make overriding decisions is an abuse of power. I have always been for open and transparent meetings of the club. If you recall, I put forward a proposal earlier this year to allow ALL members to be involved in club business by allowing on-line voting. But despite the hardship this creates for active members who live a long way from the Fort, the club voted to only allow voting by members who come to meetings.
That’s the current club rules and all I’m doing is adhering to the club rules.
I DO support the idea that to be a voting member a pilot must have some minimum amount of time actually flying at the Fort. It doesn’t mean a member can’t come to a club meeting and express their opinion. But those that are not flying consistently should NOT have the right to tell the ones who do fly how to run the club.

Steve has consistently shown poor judgement this year. He has been suspended three times for:
- Flying in unsafe conditions with a tandem passenger that resulted in a crash and damage to the aircraft. This is by far the most serious infraction.
- Attempting to circumvent club rules (again!) by getting Charlie to issue a suspension to Art for 6 months without proper due process of the club. No matter how well intentioned Steve’s motives were, this is a violation of club rules.
- Allowing a supervised pilot to fly in unsafe conditions.

And here once again Steve is ignoring the club rules by:
- Trying to get people voted to be club members when they cannot be.
- Trying to vote when he does not have the 20 hours
BTW Steve, we don’t care how much you flew in 2011 – it’s 2012 we’re talking about.


I’ve had many conversations with the many people who fly Funston a lot and actively take care of it. They are the ones out there shoveling chips to make our launch and landing areas. They are the ones who cleared the drains when the big water puddles appeared after the rains. They DO NOT want people attempting to run the club who spend more time coming to meetings and trying to run the club than actually being at the fort flying. And I am 100% behind supporting them. They DO NOT respect those that pose as trying to help the club and don’t have the minimum flying time.

Re: Tracey
I don’t have any objection to Tracey running for president if she had a valid right to do so. What I DO object to is her representing her position as offering to be treasurer in order to get the club vote, then changing her mind and trying to run as president. Do we really want someone who’s going to do this kind of thing as president? Who put you up to this anyway Tracey, Steve?
And I (as well as many others who are at the Fort all the time) claim she doesn’t have the 20 hours – and so doesn’t have the right to run. I regret if this damages our friendship, but it was HER decision, not mine, to attempt to run for president.

If the rest of the Executive Committee decides to meet tonight and make decisions, you will only be proving my point – that you have a blatant disregard for the rest of the club membership. If you can’t make your points here in a public forum then why do you have to have a special meeting? So you can hide from the rest of the membership?
Man up and have the discussion at the club meeting at the usual club time tomorrow.

Tom Rust wrote, "BTW Steve, we don’t care how much you flew in 2011 – it’s 2012 we’re talking about."

The bylaws read, "Voting members shall be pilots who have flown hang gliders at Fort Funston for more than 20 hours in the calendar year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote."

The pilot's flying hours in 2011 are what dictate his or her eligibility to vote in the elections at this meeting.

Regards,

Daniel

Tom just posted the following: "Steve has consistently shown poor judgement this year. He has been suspended three times for:
- Flying in unsafe conditions with a tandem passenger that resulted in a crash and damage to the aircraft. This is by far the most serious infraction.
- Attempting to circumvent club rules (again!) by getting Charlie to issue a suspension to Art for 6 months without proper due process of the club. No matter how well intentioned Steve’s motives were, this is a violation of club rules.
- Allowing a supervised pilot to fly in unsafe conditions."

Tom,

Once again you are spreading lies to selfishly promote yourself by attacking others.

Your suspension of me was illegal, and with the exception of yourself, the entire membership at the August meeting voted that my suspension was invalid. They also passed a motion to make you write a letter to USHPA testifying that I was NOT suspended. You wrote that letter and I have a copy as evidence.

Your above statements are slanderous lies and character assassination. I demand you retract your statement under threat of lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Steve Rodrigues

Wow Steve you have really sunk to a new low.

The only part that got changed was that I wanted to suspend you for three weeks - one week for each violation. As you whined and complained that it should only be for one week, and you demanded that the club vote on it, and the club did not want to see potential suspensions held over peoples head. So it was changed to one week.

It does not in any way change the fact that you made these errors - eggregious errors which put pilots and bystanders in harms way and attempted to bypass club rules. If you can't man up to that then you don't deserve to be in any way part of this club.

At least you had the sense at the time to withdraw yourself as the tandem director. But it doesn't change the fact that this was a near disastrous error in judgement. If your passenger had been injured what would have happened to the fort? As it was you made us look terrible in front of the French film crew.

So is there an absentee voting option?

I for one have witnessed many things at the Fort and to sum it up it's "Inconsistency". Rules are randomly enforced depending on who the pilot is that broke them. Rules broken in say soccer (pulling a jersey, off sides, etc.) result in a yellow card. Breaking rules when you're in the air can result in serious injury or death. How many times have we said or heard "Man, that dude is going to hurt himself or someone else doing aero so close to the cliff"? I was always told it was against the rules, yet everyone watches it and says or does nothing. Hind site shows a suspension for actions like that may save someone in the future from the same unfortunate results.

A club or group of people cannot randomly enforce rules or regulations based off relationships. They are in place for the safety and successful management of the club. When you have something like the Fort, where people are friends, where there are clicks and little clubs within the club, strict, non-biased enforcement is even more paramount and critical.

EVERY incident needs to be clearly and competently handled, regardless if you are the President, the VP, the coolest cat at the site, etc. Maybe have a voted in "Safety Committee" of 4-6 members (if there isn't one already) that reviews and votes on every incident at the Fort, and FOLLOWS THROUGH with the needed actions.

Regarding Dan Pifko's comment on the 20 hour rule timeframe.
There are two ways this can be interpreted:
Again, the rule is:
Voting members shall be pilots who have flown hang gliders at Fort Funston for over 20 hours in the calender year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote.
Merriam's dictionary defines a calender year as:
Definition of CALENDAR YEAR
1
: a period of a year beginning and ending with the dates that are conventionally accepted as marking the beginning and end of a numbered year
2
: a period of time equal in length to that of the year in the calendar conventionally in use

If we use definition one then for this election it refers to 2011. If we use definition 2 it refers to 2012.
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.

But I don't think it makes a difference in either case for the 3 members in question. 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.

Tom,
Lets get all the facts straight. The reason your 3 week suspension was invalid is because you saved up what you thought were violations over a period of months, then tried to give me a 3 week suspension without a hearing. Our bylaws state:

ARTICLE XI: DISCIPLINE
Since it is the Club’s duty to administer the hang gliding program at Fort Funston, the Club may revoke or suspend the flying privileges of members or non-members.
Section 1: For violating Fort Funston or generally accepted rules and conduct, a pilot’s flying privileges may be suspended in the following manner:
A. For up to 7 days by a club officer;
B. For longer than 7 days, by a majority vote of the Executive Committee present at a hearing at which at least one witness to the violation or offense testifies and at which the accused pilot has the following rights:
1. Notice of violation;
2. Notice of hearing;
3. Name of witnesses to violation;
4. Opportunity to question witnesses;
5. Opportunity to be heard; and
6. Opportunity to produce witnesses.
C. The hearing shall be conducted by the President or Safety Director.
Section 2: A disciplinary action imposed by the Executive Committee may be
modified only by a majority vote of the Executive Committee.

Your saying that my suspension was not a 3 week suspension, but rather three 1 week suspensions rolled into one, and therefore I'm not entitled to a hearing is total BS. The membership determined that an officer can NOT save up multiple violations over months time and dump them on someone whenever they feel like it. They also upheld the fact that you denied me due process.

I did launch a H-2/P-4 in conditions that were more cross than allowed. I posted that on the web site. I have known that pilot for years and thought his P-4 skills would help him set up a landing approach in a hang glider. I was wrong and accepted the one week suspension.

Your other complaints are invalid. First of all, you can't suspend someone simply because they disagree with you. You claimed to have TWO votes at Art's hearing and Charlie and I both denied your claim. Not only is two votes amoral, it is against California Corporate law. So you suspended me for not allowing you to violate the law. Total B.S.

As far as me getting caught in a rotor while top landing tandem; since when do we suspend pilots for bending down tubes?!? Many Tandem Instructors have launched in conditions worse than that day, the conditions were fine. Maybe not for you, but fine for an experienced Tandem Instructor. My second successful and safe tandem proved that the conditions were fine. The problem with my first flight was that I simply misjudged the rotor. Like you haven't? All this would have been considered by the EC at the hearing that you denied me.

You Mr. President, are in gross violation of our rules and bylaws and should be impeached if not voted out.

Tom,

Per your statement above, the 3 people currently on the list that have had the executive committee waive their requirement for flying 20 hours so they can be voting members are Chuck Kranz, Mark Lilledahl and Daniel Pifko.

Chuck does not want to be on that list. He can afford to pay the dues and wants to do his financial part to support the club. He is bringing cash to pay his club dues to the executive committee meeting tonight so he can get off the list. Chuck has flown 20 hours in both 2011 & 2012 anyway, so his being on the list was not necessary. According to the bylaws that list is only about waiving the 20 hour rule, not waiving club dues.

Mark never wanted to be on the list in the first place and strongly wants off the list now that he is aware that he’s on it. He merely wanted to help with some clubhouse repairs last year but didn’t have a clubhouse key. Someone felt they needed to add him to the 20 hour waiver list in order to give him a key. He does not want to be on the club’s books as being a member so he is writing an e-mail this evening asking to be removed immediately. He does not have this year’s clubhouse key.

So 2 of the 3 people on that list wish to be removed immediately. I was voted in by the executive committee to be added to that list. You were one of the board members who unanimously voted to have my 20 hours waived. So now that there are spots available on list, are you still going to renege on your vote for waiving the 20 hour requirement for me?

And to clarify a couple of points that you made above…
1) Steve did not initiate the vote at last month’s meeting to add me to the list of those waived of the 20 hour requirement. Charlie did.
2) I did not say at last month’s meeting that I was going to run for treasurer. When Van asked me if I would run for treasurer I said, “We’ll see, but I will run in some capacity.”

My intention had previously been to run for treasurer. The truth is, my first choice would not be running for president. To be in the direct line of fire of a club that has a number of contentious members and the membership often has varying opinions is more than unappealing to me. But I made a commitment about 5 months ago that if no one offered to run against you that I felt would help re-unite the club, then I would. No one has stepped forward so I'm going to stand by my commitment and do the best I can to serve my club by running.

And this decision was made solely by me. I am not anyone's puppet. If I disagree with anyone on any issue I will make my point known and will stand fast for what I believe. I have openly disagreed with you on many occasions and have held my positions. I've disagreed with Steve on several occasions and made my positions clear to him as well. I am a sweet, loving person, but when needed I have a back bone of steel.

The position of club president is not a dictatorship. It is only 1 voice among 7 on the board, and 1 voice among many in the club. For almost all issues the club’s membership votes to make club decisions, not the board. I have no hidden agenda. I merely want to do what I can to bring levelheadedness, unity, fiscal responsibility, and fun back to our club.

You’ve been supportive for 6 months of my running for treasurer. You and I even had personal discussions about my need to have the 20 hour requirement waived to do so and you agreed to cast your vote to waive it. The board, including you, did vote to waive my 20 hours. How is it that you were in support of it when I was going to run for treasurer but once I let you know a week ago that I was running for president instead, you sought to find a way to keep me from being a voting member and being able to run for a board position?

There is room now to have another person added to the 20 hour waived list. You and the rest of the board unanimously voted to add me to it. What other excuses will you come up with to try to keep me from running against you for president?

Tracey