Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

dhmartens · Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Posts: 232 Location: Reseda

My understanding of John Howard's letter on December 10, 2009 posted on recallbobk.com leads me to believe USHPA could be barred from doing business in California by the California Attorney General. This would nullify all site insurance and personal liability insurance sold in California by the USHPA.

It is also my understanding the lawsuit would be brought directly by the Attorney Generals office, not necessarily by any individual, and could already be underway, and could not be stopped by any individual.

If I can remember the conversation from the 18th and final lawyer I in phone interviewed in 1995, he said:

The attorney general will pursue a lawsuit on behalf of the people of California. The violation in question damages the people of California. It is a privilege and not a right to do business in the state of California.

Doug

Bob Kuczewski · Joined: 06 Jul 2009 Posts: 150 Location: San Diego

I'm not a lawyer, and to be honest, both lawyer's arguments sound convincing when I hear them in isolation of the other. It might take a judge to come up with the final answer.

But I have to ask what the USHPA Executive Committee hopes to gain by excluding Directors from their meetings in the first place? Is it worth the risk they are taking with our association?

So far, I have not pushed this very far at all. I sought two different legal opinions and both confirmed that USHPA could not bar Directors. Then I paid one of those two lawyers to write a letter and a few responses. The purpose of those letters was to advise the USHPA EC that they are taking steps that could lead to legal action. If I just wanted to take that action, then I would have done so long ago. I'm doing my best to avoid that last resort.

But the biggest question is why would the EC want to bar Directors anyway? Wouldn't more perspectives lead to better decisions? Isn't that the purpose of having a Board of Directors instead of having just a few people in charge? And what is their legal basis for barring some Directors and not others? Are they saying the members who voted for me don't deserve as much representation as the members who voted for the other directors?

This whole business is embarrassing to USHPA, and they're wasting tremendous time, energy, and good will in the process. And for what? Are they spending our money so they can say: "Na naa na naaa na. We're on the inside and you can't come in." ?

Is that the EC that we have?

barton · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 86

Anyone wanting to ADD their name to the petition to recall region 3 director Bob Kuczewski, please go to:

http://www.recallbobk.com

greblo · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 234

Bob, you asked the question and I seem to have time to answer it. Mostly for the benefit of those who care.
I believe the USHPA Directors would only approve barring a Director, if the majority of Directors agreed that the Director was being barred because the majority felt his/her attendance would be disruptive or counter productive. The USHPA does not have a history of barring directors for any other reasons that I'm aware of. My experience has always been that if a Director wished to attend a meeting of a committee that he was not a member of, he would simply attend.

In the case of tele conference meetings by the Executive Committee (Pres, VP, and Sec.) this is not possible, so he would have to request attendance (which is normally granted). The reason that the EC revoked their previous invitation to you has been made public.
_________________
Safety is a book, not a word
Michael Robertson

Don · Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 365

Hey Barton ! I believe the process is well beyond the petition signature stage - unless you already knew that. Confused

However, if you are interested in starting another petition drive - this one to remove ALL the Executive Committee members from their posts - I'll gladly sign that one! Very Happy

And once that is done - maybe we can get rid of that person who was hired to run the organization. He left such an impression on me that I can't remember his name, can't remember when exactly he started, and can't think of a single improvement in the organization since he started - unless you call continued declining membership an improvement. All I can remember was something about his prior experience was in amateur boxing – I suspect another activity with declining interest.

OSCAR · Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 480 Location: LONG BEACH,CA

That's just to funny.

abinder · Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Hey Barton !

Bob Kuczewski · Joined: 06 Jul 2009 Posts: 150 Location: San Diego

greblo · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 234

I'll answer all 10 of your questions, although in my post I was taking issue only with your premise that the USHPA "excludes Directors" from meetings. I feel your statement that the "Executive Committee bars Directors", would be accurate if you phrased it as the USHPA "revoked my invitation to an Executive Committee Meeting", as I believe was the case.

The difference is very important, for example one's statement, "I dislike a woman named Beth", is not the same as "I hate all women".

Your 10 questions are followed by my answers.

1. <"I have to ask what the USHPA Executive Committee hopes to gain by excluding Directors from their meetings in the first place?">
Nothing, that's why they almost never bar Directors from meetings. All any Director has to do is ask to attend and they are granted permission (as evidenced directly by your case). At least that's what I've always seen and I've not yet met anyone other than you that says otherwise. The reason they revoked your invitation was because you threatened to sue them if they came out of that meeting without agreeing to your terms. Once you threatened to sue the USHGA, the EC thought it prudent to check with their lawyer about how to handle your threat. It was only upon the advice of their attorney that they rescinded the invitation for you to attend. I don't understand why anyone would find that surprising or unacceptable.

2. <"Is it worth the risk they are taking with our association?">
Since they don't exclude directors except under rare and unusual circumstances, I would suspect that there is little controversy and little risk. Of course, the guy threatening to sue might feel differently.

3. <"Why would the EC want to bar Directors anyway?">
THEY DON'T. They were advised by their attorney to rescind your invitation. Are you suggesting that they should not have taken the advice of their lawyer?

4. <"Wouldn't more perspectives lead to better decisions?">
Yes, and it is my belief that the Executive Committee agrees with you completely, except in cases where they've been advised otherwise by their counsel.

5. <"Isn't that the purpose of having a Board of Directors instead of having just a few people in charge?">
I think it's the other way around. Isn't the purpose of Executive Committees, as provided for in both the Bylaws and California Nonprofit corporate law, to act at the boards behest in between Board of Director Meetings? If what you suggest were true, then there would be no need for the establishment of EC meetings and the full board would be required to meet, not only much more often, but also whenever any spontaneous, time sensitive, matter was to surface. The logistics and costs of intervening the participation of approximately 30 board members on short notice, or for simple, routine, or emergency agenda items, has proven in most, if not all states, to be unnecessarily burdensome. I challenge you to name me one other large nonprofit sports association that operates without an Executive Committee in their bylaws.

In question #5, you seem to be suggesting that the entire board should convene for EC meetings. Well which is it? You can't make both arguments. Either the full board should attend EC meetings, or the EC should be allowed to act at the direction of the entire board as is highly common in corporate law.

6. <What>
Of course not. This question is presumptuous and unfair to all the Directors that you, I, and the rest of the USHPA members voted into office.

10. <"Is that the EC that we have?">
Yes. And they are held accountable to 27? other popularly elected Directors, as well as the members. You are right to hold them accountable, and so should the rest of us.

In case those reading this get the impression that I don't like Bob, or that I disagree with Bob on most issues; please don't. Quite the contrary, I admire much of what Bob believes in and stands for, I respect his assertiveness and stamina, and quite frankly I like him a lot and always enjoy his company.

Unfortunately, I believe that his methods unnecessarily alienate a lot of important people, and I've spent a great deal of our time together trying to convince him of this.
_________________
Safety is a book, not a word
Michael Robertson

greblo · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 234

I'll answer all 10, although in my post I was taking issue with your premise that the USHPA "excludes Directors" from meetings. I feel your statement that the Executive Committee bars Directors, would be accurate if you phrased it as the USHPA "revoked my invitation to an Executive Committee Meeting", as I believe was the case. The difference is very important, for example one's statement, "I dislike a woman named Beth", is not the same as "I hate all women".

1. "I have to ask what the USHPA Executive Committee hopes to gain by excluding Directors from their meetings in the first place?"
Nothing, that's why they almost never bar Directors from meetings. All any Director has to do is ask to attend and they are granted permission (as evidenced directly by your case). At least that's what I've always seen and I've not yet met anyone other than you that says otherwise. The reason they revoked your invitation was because you threatened to sue them if they came out of that meeting without agreeing to your terms. Once you threatened to sue the USHGA, the EC thought it prudent to check with their lawyer about how to handle your threat. It was only upon the advice of their attorney that they rescinded the invitation for you to attend. I don't understand why anyone would find that surprising or unacceptable.

2. "Is it worth the risk they are taking with our association?"
Since they don't exclude directors except under rare and unusual circumstances, I would suspect that there is little controversy and little risk. Of course, the guy threatening to sue might feel differently.

3. "Why would the EC want to bar Directors anyway?"
THEY DON'T. They were advised by their attorney to rescind your invitation. Are you suggesting that they should not have taken the advice of their lawyer?

4. "Wouldn't more perspectives lead to better decisions?"
Yes, and it is my belief that the Executive Committee agrees with you completely, except in cases where they've been advised otherwise by their counsel.

5. "Isn't that the purpose of having a Board of Directors instead of having just a few people in charge?"
I think it's the other way around. Isn't the purpose of Executive Committees, as provided for in both the Bylaws and California Nonprofit corporate law, to act at the boards behest in between Board of Director Meetings? If what you suggest were true, then there would be no need for the establishment of EC meetings and the full board would be required to meet, not only much more often, but also whenever any spontaneous, time sensitive, matter was to surface. The logistics and costs of intervening the participation of approximately 30 board members on short notice, or for simple, routine, or emergency agenda items, has proven in most, if not all states, to be unnecessarily burdensome. I challenge you to name me one other large nonprofit sports association that operates without an Executive Committee in their bylaws.

In question #5, you seem to be suggesting that the entire board should convene for EC meetings. Well which is it? You can't make both arguments. Either the full board should attend EC meetings, or the EC should be allowed to act at the direction of the entire board as is highly common in corporate law.

6. "What is their legal basis for barring some Directors and not others?"
Their legal basis is the advice of their attorney to refuse attendance to a Director that threatened to sue the USHPA if the EC doesn't agree with the opinion of that Director. Their lawyer has provided you and your lawyer with the legal substance of that decision. I believe that this information has also been made available to the membership of the USHPA. Instead of asking this question, you should refer to the documents that were sent to your lawyer.

7. "Are they saying the members who voted for me don't deserve as much representation as the members who voted for the other directors?"
No they are not saying that at all. They are simply saying that the threat of a lawsuit by a USHPA Director is enough to get him uninvited from a meeting that he was previously invited to.

8. "This whole business is embarrassing to USHPA, and they're wasting tremendous time, energy, and good will in the process. And for what?"
I disagree, and I believe that if USHPA members are willing to spend the time necessary to hear both sides of the story, and not just listen to your side, they will agree that...........
a. The USHPA Directors are well meaning volunteers, elected by popular vote of the members. They are generally among pilots that are highly respected like Dennis Pagen, Matt Taber, Paul Voight, etc. They are very much inclined to try to do a good job for the association. They can, they have, and they will likely make some mistakes as will most of us with our responsibilities. However, they are held accountable to the entire Board of Directors as well as the USHPA membership in it's entirety.
b. The EC had good reason to revoke their invitation for you to attend.

9. "Are they spending our money so they can say: "Na naa na naaa na. We're on the inside and you can't come in?"
Of course not. This question is presumptuous and unfair to all the Directors that you, I, and the rest of the USHPA members voted into office.

10. "Is that the EC that we have?"
Yes. And they are held accountable to 27? other popularly elected Directors, as well as the members.

In case those reading this get the impression that I don't like Bob, or that I disagree with Bob on most issues; please don't. Quite the contrary, I admire much of what Bob believes in and stands for, I respect his assertiveness and stamina, and quite frankly I like him a lot and always enjoy his company. Unfortunately, I believe that his methods have unnecessarily alienated a lot of important people.
_________________
Safety is a book, not a word
Michael Robertson

OP · Joined: 27 May 2009 Posts: 110

I expected a full treatise from Bob by now.

OSCAR · Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 480 Location: LONG BEACH,CA

SHHHHHHH ,he's still typing Smile

greblo · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 234

test
_________________
Safety is a book, not a word
Michael Robertson

OP · Joined: 27 May 2009 Posts: 110

Torry is a treasure to be protected by those who soar. But efforts to keep equal access to the site results in getting punked and bullied by the USHPA.

What is one to do? Have a lawyer write a letter telling them they aren't following their own bylaws?

Is is appropriate to be a single issue elected representative? Much like the J.K. Polk campaign in 1844 promising a single term promising western expansion?

I think he should continue and hope that he is able to negotiate a para gliding cession of Torry and acquire Oregon territories for our form of flight.

Bob Kuczewski · Joined: 06 Jul 2009 Posts: 150 Location: San Diego

Hi Joe,

Since most of your answers (1,2,3,4,6,7) are related to USHPA taking the legal advice of Tim Herr, I'll answer them all at once...

We participate in the sport of hang gliding. Any lawyer will tell you that we take risks (legal risks and non-legal risks) by participating in that sport. Any lawyer who is looking out for the maximum legal protection of "USHPA" (the corporation) would be on solid ground to say that USHPA should distance itself from the sport of hang gliding altogether (maybe focus on ping pong or something else). That's how USHPA can minimize its risks. But despite that wise advice, we persist in flying and in forming organizations to promote flying. We choose to take those risks. It is therefore not logical to rely solely on following the most conservative legal advice when deciding what USHPA should or should not do. Furthermore, you must have read both legal opinions, and you surely recognize that they differ. My lawyer is quite clear that USHPA cannot bar Directors from any aspect of corporate life (including EC meetings). Tim Herr disagrees. Do you, Joe Greblo, know who is right? As far as I can tell, we can either decide it for ourselves (which I encourage) or it can go to a real court case where that will be established once and for all. Which road do you prefer?

Now regarding my letter, the EC violated USHPA's own SOPs by telling me that I could not use my title as Regional Director when communicating about Torrey Pines. Here's the SOP: