Eliminating the National Directors

We have a new USPA National Director that ran on the platform of downsizing the current board from 22 down to 14. I totally support this and I hope Ed Scott is going to make this happen. The paid staff and the 14 elected regional directors are the future of USPA. It is time.

Could you explain what you think are the pro's and con's of this suggested change. I would appreciate your thoughts, because I never really gave much thought to the composition of the current board.

2 hours ago, DougH said:

Could you explain what you think are the pro's and con's of this suggested change. I would appreciate your thoughts, because I never really gave much thought to the composition of the current board.

8 less opinions and 8 less folks governing in potential conflict of interest.

Quote

8 less folks governing in potential conflict of interest.

Doesn't that cut both ways? That could also mean 8 less folks who could counter the actions of other directors with conflicts of interests.

6 hours ago, DougH said:

Doesn't that cut both ways? That could also mean 8 less folks who could counter the actions of other directors with conflicts of interests.

Then why not 20 National Directors? Ed is right that there are too many special interest voices governing USPA. In terms of membership percentages no one votes for them so who needs or wants them? 

Prior to 1982 there were 10 national directors and 12 conference directors (now regional directors). 

In 1982 there was a reapportionment and 2 regional directors were added and 2 national director positions eliminated.

USPA membership and number of DZ's have increased in the past 39 years. 

I would be in favor of examining the number of members in each region, doing another reapportionment and adding regional directors if

found necessary to serve the membership better and eliminating the national director positions.

http://www.parachutehistory.com/skydive/uspa/reapp82.html

22 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

Prior to 1982 there were 10 national directors and 12 conference directors (now regional directors). 

In 1982 there was a reapportionment and 2 regional directors were added and 2 national director positions eliminated.

USPA membership and number of DZ's have increased in the past 39 years. 

I would be in favor of examining the number of members in each region, doing another reapportionment and adding regional directors if

found necessary to serve the membership better and eliminating the national director positions.

http://www.parachutehistory.com/skydive/uspa/reapp82.html

Jumpers prove every election they don't give a shit. Let's just fade the idea of fragmented representation and hire people for money to do the job.

Ed Scott will attest that I've hammered him more than hugged him, and I also think his C182 drop zone agenda is flawed. That aside he is spot on about our having too many elected officials. I wish him success.

Maybe less feelings and more data. So whose rep would be cut? Why those people? Who would stay and why? It's true that some jumpers don't give a shit about the BOD. But it's also true that some of us do. 

I'd like to hear from Ed himself on this question of At-Large Reps vs. Regional Reps. And hear from other board members as well.

A benefit I can see At-Large reps helping with are cases where there are several valuable / highly qualified board candidates in the same region. One can be a regional rep, and the other(s) could run as At-Large. 

Joe's con argument of "the more reps the more mismanagement / corruption" seems like a weak argument.

The "why did so few people vote?" got beaten pretty hard in the other thread, but my 0.02 is that I didn't vote because I didn't know the candidates well enough to be able to choose one over another, and in that case, voting is worse than not voting. 

 

15 hours ago, Bigfalls said:

I would be in favor of examining the number of members in each region, doing another reapportionment and adding regional directors

Can I be in charge of the gerrymandering for this? I mean; I am an "R" and all so we're pretty good at tilting shit our way. 

Sounds like the National Directors act more like the Senate ... if you compare Regional Directors to Congress or the House of Commons. National Directors should take a "sober second look" at any proposed changes.

Back in 2013 CSPA eliminated Regional Directors and it became a flaming disaster form my perspective. Since we no long had a regional director representing B.C. and the Yukon, I did not know who to contact on a delicate political matter. 

Before advocating for change, I always ask myself - what problem am I trying to solve? So I ask here - what's the actual problem? 

are the positions paid?  i was under the impression they were volunteer positions.  i was also wondering what the problem to be solved was.  if they are volunteers, they don't cost anything, so that isn't it.  if there are 14 regions and directors, what were the other 8 for anyway?  i guess if i really cared i would have paid attention and know the answers or voted.  more a curiosity than anything i guess.

5 hours ago, Deisel said:

Before advocating for change, I always ask myself - what problem am I trying to solve? So I ask here - what's the actual problem? 

Good question, and I haven't heard a good answer.

5 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

are the positions paid?  i was under the impression they were volunteer positions.  i was also wondering what the problem to be solved was.  if they are volunteers, they don't cost anything, so that isn't it.  if there are 14 regions and directors, what were the other 8 for anyway?  i guess if i really cared i would have paid attention and know the answers or voted.  more a curiosity than anything i guess.

USPA directors are volunteers, they are not paid.  When they attend the board meetings, their travel, hotel and meals are paid by USPA.

Two meetings a year, usually run Friday, Saturday and part of Sunday.  Downsizing the board to 14 would save over $22,000 each year (Ed Scott estimate in his Board of Directors Election bio).

On 12/16/2021 at 4:09 AM, Deisel said:

Before advocating for change, I always ask myself - what problem am I trying to solve? So I ask here - what's the actual problem? 

Quoting Ed here: 

21 hours ago, SStewart said:

Quoting Ed here: 

"I want to abolish the position of National Director. Effective boards number 10 to 12 members; USPA’s board is twice that size. Eliminating the eight National Director positions and retaining the 14 Regional Director positions would downsize the board. National Directors have none of the many responsibilities placed upon Regional Directors, and turnover among National Directors is low because they are largely reelected based on name recognition. But being a famous skydiver or well-known DZO doesn’t guarantee they contribute to the board (some do but many don’t). Downsizing to 14 would make the board more efficient and save over $22,000 in board travel expenses each year. "

 

Seems like compelling reasons to me. It would be easy to do since the RDs have the vote.

 

 

Absolutely. Ed Scott is right on this. From experience I can state affirmatively that being a DZO is no guarantee of excellence in any area. Beyond that there are plenty of DZO's or DZO spawn filling or ready to fill the ranks of RD's so I am certain the self serving will remain well represented at USPA Headquarters.

I say we overthrow the USPA just to get rid of those dumb fucking cloud regs

#mattBlankForPres

22 minutes ago, RolandForbes said:

I say we overthrow the USPA just to get rid of those dumb fucking cloud regs

#mattBlankForPres

Hi Roland,

Those cloud regs are FAA regs.  Good luck trying to get rid of them. *

Jerry Baumchen

* Try pissing into the wind, you will be more successful.

22 minutes ago, RolandForbes said:

I say we overthrow the USPA just to get rid of those dumb fucking cloud regs

#mattBlankForPres

Sorry, your request for insurrection has been denied.

You only purchased the non-profit volunteer membership organization revolution package.

You will need to upgrade to the Federal Aviation Administration package to change the cloud regulations through an uprising. 

2 hours ago, RolandForbes said:

I say we overthrow the USPA just to get rid of those dumb fucking cloud regs

#mattBlankForPres

You could call it "de-nazification". 

5 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Roland,

Those cloud regs are FAA regs.  Good luck trying to get rid of them. *

Jerry Baumchen

* Try pissing into the wind, you will be more successful.

Do you even jump, bro? You seem like more of a golfer. 

Leading to my next question as to whether the US Golf Association has cloud regs?

-Tootles Jerr bear

28 minutes ago, RolandForbes said:

Do you even jump, bro? You seem like more of a golfer. 

Leading to my next question as to whether the US Golf Association has cloud regs?

 

-Tootles Jerr bear

Show some respect Jerry has more knowledge about the sport than you could ever have. And for the record he has jumped.

4 hours ago, RolandForbes said:

Do you even jump, bro? You seem like more of a golfer. 

Leading to my next question as to whether the US Golf Association has cloud regs?

 

-Tootles Jerr bear

Sigh.....Kids, does your mother know you treat people like that? I'm not sure what Jerry said to make you ask such a thing. He seems to be on the side of the righteous. And what have you got against golf anyway?

Jumper with madskillz thinks USPA sets the cloud regs.

Jumper with incredible knowledge of skydiving points out it's an FAA reg.

Mr. Madskillz goes full insult, 

Some people shouldn't get internet in their mom's basement.