USHPA Goverance Proposal Opinon by Ken Grubbs


#1

Ken Grubbs has asked that I post this on the Forum for him as he for some reason can’t log on to the site.

From Ken Grubbs :

My Opposition to the proposed USHPA Board Restructure Plan

Ken Grubbs

Regional Director Region 4

Please consider carefully the proposed new Governance Plan 2018 that you the members will be voting on early next year. It will, if adopted, dramatically change how the USHPA is governed. As Yogi Berra said; “if you get to a fork in the road, … take it”. Please participate in the vote.

I, along with a small group of Regional Directors, oppose this new Smaller Board of Directors Plan. When I summed the time we, this group, have collectively observed and participated in the ups and downs of the USHPA and it’s Board of Directors, I came up with well over 200 years. In our opinions, the USHPA, under the current organization has been very successful responding to various crises, including the latest “Insurance “crisis. That was due to a large group of Regional Directors that always contained a core of dedicated and talented members that enabled us to overcome and succeed. That was the case when we lost our insurance and had to create the RRG, hats off to those dedicated people.

It is understandable, after this intense effort, to feel frustration that all the work was being done by a
subset of the BOD and then think, well …. a smaller group is more efficient and …, gee the popular trend
these days is a smaller Board size for non profits such as the USHPA, so…let’s propose a smaller Board of
Directors as the solution to all our future challenges. I think that it is a wrong approach, because, the
reason we always have succeeded in the past was that a larger more inclusive BOD always seemed to
have amongst the members a smaller set of talented people who could respond to changing issues and
crises. Our existing Board structure encourages member participation, diversity, provides an available
talent pool and preserves the social nature of the Association that was important part it when it was
founded.

I am not opposed to constructive change in our organization, it can be positive done the right way, I look
forward to reviewing future proposals to that effect, even modifications to this one because I think it
contains flawed assumptions, but change for change sake is always ill advised.
This proposal is in my opinion is complex, further limits involvement of the membership in activities of
the Board and will not address the main problem of declining membership in any meaningful way.

• The electoral process emphasizes diversity and can substitute a losing candidate in place of the winning candidate if diversity (wing type, age , gender, location) mandates. Why, we are already diverse with larger Board. Gender, pilot type, region, age, Liberal, Conservative, we’ve got them all.

• The new regions lump pilots together with little regard for regional variation, in my region, Colorado with Southern California. I like those guys (So Cal) but we don’t share much as far as flying conditions.

• Five years from now, we will still have the same declining membership problem because we have wasted time rearranging furniture vs outreach.

• A quote from the bard himself, Wm. Shakespeare; “Thou art a very ragged Wart”, describes the proposed Governance Plan. Come up with a better plan, I might vote yes. But, In my opinion, small, more efficient, is not the solution for a social / pilot driven organization to be successful and inclusive. We want pilots to feel more involved not less.

Remember declining membership is a problem shared by the entire Aviation community, not just the USHPA’s alone. Instructors, training sites and public awareness are our tasks to handle not reorganization.

Now, one more word. The guys in favor of this proposal, especially the ones who did all the hard work
putting it together, are a bunch of dedicated pilots who care as much as you and I about the future of
the USHPA. They put their butts in gear and worked very hard to come up with something they believed
will benefit us all. I like them and say THANK YOU for your contribution above and beyond the call of
duty. I just happen to believe that our current structure, though not perfect and sometimes frustrating,
has been a benefit to the long term success of the USHPA. VOTE NO .

Thanks and Good Flying,

Ken Grubbs


#2

I agree with Ken and several other long term BOD members. Adopting no the proposed changes will not be a good thing for Region 4 and other regions in the US.

A no vote from me.

SF


#3

Unfortunately due to low membership participation, the new USHPA governance proposal passed with only 18.6% of USHPA members voting in favor of the change.

Of the 8718 members 1623 voted for the change and 1167 voted against it.

As a membership oriented organization any reasonable board would have required a quorum of 50% + 1 to make sweeping changes to how members are represented along with gerrymandering the regions and having non-elected members on a small board.

USHPA is our organization. The board members should be transparent and accountable.

How this could have been done in a better, more inclusive way.

Have the membership vote on issues and proposals one at a time, letting them choose amongst various proposals. It is a member based organization, let the members decide which of the proposals are good or not. for example:
1 - retain current regions, or change to 5 new and different regions
2 - current board makeup, or one director per region, or one director with an alternate per region
3 - board gets to appoint an extra board member, or board members elected by membership only
4 - board members elected per region, or nationally
5 - attorney gets to vote as a board member, or attorney acts as an attorney (provides counsel)
6 - let the members vote for diverse representatives (as we have now), or use a calculation …

The USHPA membership is quite capable of deciding on this, but rather than listening to its membership by letting them vote on these matters, we were given a lump it all together take it or leave it proposal. That is not effective leadership. This is woefully disappointing.