As per a recent discussion that I have had about the use of our BCHPA fund.
I am of the opinion that the BCHPA fund was established to improve access to sites to grow our sport.
I feel that new site development should be the number 1 priority for BCHPA based on a few stipulations.
-How much will the site be used? (How often is it flyable? How many pilots? Will it increase pilot numbers in the area?)
-Open access to all BC members and schools?
My concern is that there has been a number of applications for site improvements. Weather stations for example.
I think an open discussion between the new BCHPA will acknowledge my concern.
Thank you and feel free to reply. Cheers
BCHPA Funding
Re: BCHPA Funding
Hi,
I'm the current BCHPA president and local rep for Vancouver and Pemberton.
I'm not sure this is the best venue for this discussion and I think you should talk to your local rep Jason Leus.
However I can say that BCHPA is looking to widen the scope of the the activities it undertakes in support of paragliding and hang gliding in BC. Limiting it to site development and waiting for the local pilots to get that process underway has not in recent times lead to much in the way of active development of free flight and has lead to a somewhat invisible BCHPA.
I'm the current BCHPA president and local rep for Vancouver and Pemberton.
I'm not sure this is the best venue for this discussion and I think you should talk to your local rep Jason Leus.
However I can say that BCHPA is looking to widen the scope of the the activities it undertakes in support of paragliding and hang gliding in BC. Limiting it to site development and waiting for the local pilots to get that process underway has not in recent times lead to much in the way of active development of free flight and has lead to a somewhat invisible BCHPA.
Tom Dupree
Advance Iota (Purple, white and lime green)
my user name @ gmail . com
Advance Iota (Purple, white and lime green)my user name @ gmail . com
Re: BCHPA Funding
I'm no longer in the Kootenays but I'm stoked for Jay's project and enthusiasm. His project is exactly what I feel Bchpa was created for. I'd also like to say thank you for your service as president.
Re: BCHPA Funding
Hi all,
Quick note here to say that I'm glad to see some discussion and interest in the BCHPA and what it can (and should) do and fund! The more involvement from all pilots and stakeholders, the better.
If anyone is interested in site development and projects to advance our sport, PLEASE reach out to your local BCHPA area rep who will gladly help out.
Contacts here: http://www.bchpa.ca/board-of-directors.html
Special thanks to everyone who's contributed over the years.
Cheers,
James
Quick note here to say that I'm glad to see some discussion and interest in the BCHPA and what it can (and should) do and fund! The more involvement from all pilots and stakeholders, the better.
If anyone is interested in site development and projects to advance our sport, PLEASE reach out to your local BCHPA area rep who will gladly help out.
Contacts here: http://www.bchpa.ca/board-of-directors.html
Special thanks to everyone who's contributed over the years.
Cheers,
James
James Elliott
Re: BCHPA Funding
So unfortunately I have to respond to Tom's fallacious post -again- because a moderator on this forum deleted the first response in an attempt to 'manage a perception' that the former BCHPA board was not doing their duties. My apologies for having to repost this.
Firstly, The BCHPA has never limited its scope to site development and certainly did not during the last board's tenure, and Tom, for whatever reason, has chosen to ignore that history and didn't do his homework.
Secondly, we had never waited for pilots to initiate projects. As a board, we had regularly and continuously interacted with pilots in our various regions to see what was needed or desired by the local pilots. I personally spoke with most of the pilots in our region and brought the BCHPA up at every function I attended(as those that attended the WCSC AGMs can attest as the board was very active in soliciting projects there as well) as did the rest of our board in their regions. So again, no idea why Tom decided to ignore that to make such a statement.
Finally, considering all of the above and the 5-6 projects a year that we funded and dealt with and created a whole new active and fully functional website as well(something the HPCA has not produced in 9 years of trying, but sure it will be here soon ;-0 ) how all of that be considered 'invisible' unless one was just not actively looking.
So, for the record - the previous board resents being portrayed in a false light and requests a direct apology from Tom and would like to know why the previous version of this post was deleted and who was responsible.
You, as members of the BCHPA, may wish to have these questions answered at the next AGM as well.
Thank you for your time and hopefully this post won't magically disappear. Cheers everyone.
Sincerely,
Don Herres
Firstly, The BCHPA has never limited its scope to site development and certainly did not during the last board's tenure, and Tom, for whatever reason, has chosen to ignore that history and didn't do his homework.
Secondly, we had never waited for pilots to initiate projects. As a board, we had regularly and continuously interacted with pilots in our various regions to see what was needed or desired by the local pilots. I personally spoke with most of the pilots in our region and brought the BCHPA up at every function I attended(as those that attended the WCSC AGMs can attest as the board was very active in soliciting projects there as well) as did the rest of our board in their regions. So again, no idea why Tom decided to ignore that to make such a statement.
Finally, considering all of the above and the 5-6 projects a year that we funded and dealt with and created a whole new active and fully functional website as well(something the HPCA has not produced in 9 years of trying, but sure it will be here soon ;-0 ) how all of that be considered 'invisible' unless one was just not actively looking.
So, for the record - the previous board resents being portrayed in a false light and requests a direct apology from Tom and would like to know why the previous version of this post was deleted and who was responsible.
You, as members of the BCHPA, may wish to have these questions answered at the next AGM as well.
Thank you for your time and hopefully this post won't magically disappear. Cheers everyone.
Sincerely,
Don Herres
Re: BCHPA Funding
Don, Tom didn't remove your original post, and neither did anyone else on the WCSC board or volunteer chairs. We had incorrect admin access configuration on the forum. I'm sorry for that mistake, and we fixed it as soon as we became aware of this issue two days ago. Unfortunately we don't know what your original message in this thread was saying or why it was removed. But we fixed the permissions problem, you've now posted your BCHPA opinions, and so the WCSC part of the issue is now resolved as far as I'm concerned.
Now if the BCHPA apology season is open, I am yet to see any apologies for certain events of Summer 2019. I thought we closed that issue at the last BCHPA AGM and moved on. I certainly did, and I encourage others to. But if some members want to re-evaluate who is owed which apologies, I think we can all agree that the upcoming BCHPA AGM is a more appropriate venue for airing that laundry than a public forum.
Now if the BCHPA apology season is open, I am yet to see any apologies for certain events of Summer 2019. I thought we closed that issue at the last BCHPA AGM and moved on. I certainly did, and I encourage others to. But if some members want to re-evaluate who is owed which apologies, I think we can all agree that the upcoming BCHPA AGM is a more appropriate venue for airing that laundry than a public forum.
Nikita
Re: BCHPA Funding
Greetings Nikita, always glad to chat.
I never said that Tom or any specific person removed the post because I don't know who did. I said someone removed it and when I asked James to do a 10 minute follow up he refused, said he was 'too busy' promoting free flight.
Let me help you with your IT awareness. Permissions don't delete posts, a user/moderator/admin does. Your saying that since the faulty permissions allowed someone to delete the post then that could have been anyone? Please explain exactly what permissions were altered and who that allowed to make deletions to posts that were not theirs and the date on the log of the deletion.
We are talking about a very specific deletion as none of the other posts, before or after were deleted so that is definitely not a 'technical glitch' and since possibly anyone could have deleted it, it could have been Tom or anyone else on the board or volunteer chairs, or anyone at all, depending on what permissions were changed. We just don't know and, if fact, neither do you, which is why I asked James for a follow up. But for that specific post to have been deleted, someone didn't like what was said and deleted it and only a very few would have had motivation to do so.
As for BCHPA, you have answered your own question. Nothing was resolved at the last AGM except that the board had to tackle the dozen or so false rumours that have been perpetuated by a specific group(your group) for the previous year. It was fair to have called it an ambush because except for yourself and your spouse, not one other person came to us beforehand with any concerns or to resolve any issues so we took up a full 3 hours to address all of those concerns at the AGM. Since it was an ambush, the board did not have all the evidence at hand so many things did not come to light for the membership (which is good for the individual and their spouse for it would have been very uncomfortable and embarrassing for them).
Now you want another 3 hour session at this AGM? I for one do not want to subject the membership to that. I had a lot of members who attended that AGM come to me and say how well we stood up to the barrage and that they would never want to volunteer for free flying organizations if that is the kind of thing they would have to face. To that I have to say congratulations to your group, that like to think they are the great promotors of free flight and they scared off so many people from being an active organizing members caused by their insane politicking that has nothing to do with the joy of free flying, just to buffer their own egos.
So yes, we moved on but your group did not get the message(because Tom felt he had to slander us again in the above posting only a couple of weeks after the AGM) so I will re-iterate. That board member failed protocol, breached the constitution, and blocked us from doing our job under that constitution, and put the board in a very bad position where our only resolution was to remove her from the board and in order to not lose a site, because that is directly against our mandate, we removed her without a special meeting because such a meeting would have threatened a site. If anyone on the board put a site at risk we would have had the respect and duty to step down on our own initiative because the mandate is more important than some silly position that anyone could hold and should.
Let me be clear, The irresponsible board member’s politicking breached the constitution first and put the rest of us in a position where we could get sued by the membership so this was VERY serious. We did only what we could, there was no other option to us, and I asked that at the meeting for clarification and the only response I got from one individual was that it was ok to lose the site to save the individual. Really? Breach our mandate so one person could hold an ego position? Sorry, but in my book, that is screwed up. I know that board member is your friend but they messed up, face it.
No, our board did their best under fire and I am very proud of them. The only apology I see required here is from those that feel that our sport needs/requires politicking and rumour mongering to get their way. We did three years of excellent work without a hitch, and previous boards, the same. It took one egoistic group to start pushing an agenda to scare off a lot of good people, and they are still doing it. Shame really.
So maybe now we can ‘move on’ and focus on what really matters, the joy of free flight.
Always glad to chat and unlike the current WCSC president who said all future correspondence will 'go unread' yet also said 'The more engagement we have, the better.'(how is that for mental gymnastics), I will ALWAYS respond because we did and still do the right thing. I await your reply and willing to discuss. You can do so here or call me, you’re choice.
And yes, this is a good forum for this so we can clear the air for the record(if it doesn’t get magically deleted again} but doesn’t bother anyone who doesn’t care to read this.
Cheers,
:-Don
I never said that Tom or any specific person removed the post because I don't know who did. I said someone removed it and when I asked James to do a 10 minute follow up he refused, said he was 'too busy' promoting free flight.
Let me help you with your IT awareness. Permissions don't delete posts, a user/moderator/admin does. Your saying that since the faulty permissions allowed someone to delete the post then that could have been anyone? Please explain exactly what permissions were altered and who that allowed to make deletions to posts that were not theirs and the date on the log of the deletion.
We are talking about a very specific deletion as none of the other posts, before or after were deleted so that is definitely not a 'technical glitch' and since possibly anyone could have deleted it, it could have been Tom or anyone else on the board or volunteer chairs, or anyone at all, depending on what permissions were changed. We just don't know and, if fact, neither do you, which is why I asked James for a follow up. But for that specific post to have been deleted, someone didn't like what was said and deleted it and only a very few would have had motivation to do so.
As for BCHPA, you have answered your own question. Nothing was resolved at the last AGM except that the board had to tackle the dozen or so false rumours that have been perpetuated by a specific group(your group) for the previous year. It was fair to have called it an ambush because except for yourself and your spouse, not one other person came to us beforehand with any concerns or to resolve any issues so we took up a full 3 hours to address all of those concerns at the AGM. Since it was an ambush, the board did not have all the evidence at hand so many things did not come to light for the membership (which is good for the individual and their spouse for it would have been very uncomfortable and embarrassing for them).
Now you want another 3 hour session at this AGM? I for one do not want to subject the membership to that. I had a lot of members who attended that AGM come to me and say how well we stood up to the barrage and that they would never want to volunteer for free flying organizations if that is the kind of thing they would have to face. To that I have to say congratulations to your group, that like to think they are the great promotors of free flight and they scared off so many people from being an active organizing members caused by their insane politicking that has nothing to do with the joy of free flying, just to buffer their own egos.
So yes, we moved on but your group did not get the message(because Tom felt he had to slander us again in the above posting only a couple of weeks after the AGM) so I will re-iterate. That board member failed protocol, breached the constitution, and blocked us from doing our job under that constitution, and put the board in a very bad position where our only resolution was to remove her from the board and in order to not lose a site, because that is directly against our mandate, we removed her without a special meeting because such a meeting would have threatened a site. If anyone on the board put a site at risk we would have had the respect and duty to step down on our own initiative because the mandate is more important than some silly position that anyone could hold and should.
Let me be clear, The irresponsible board member’s politicking breached the constitution first and put the rest of us in a position where we could get sued by the membership so this was VERY serious. We did only what we could, there was no other option to us, and I asked that at the meeting for clarification and the only response I got from one individual was that it was ok to lose the site to save the individual. Really? Breach our mandate so one person could hold an ego position? Sorry, but in my book, that is screwed up. I know that board member is your friend but they messed up, face it.
No, our board did their best under fire and I am very proud of them. The only apology I see required here is from those that feel that our sport needs/requires politicking and rumour mongering to get their way. We did three years of excellent work without a hitch, and previous boards, the same. It took one egoistic group to start pushing an agenda to scare off a lot of good people, and they are still doing it. Shame really.
So maybe now we can ‘move on’ and focus on what really matters, the joy of free flight.
Always glad to chat and unlike the current WCSC president who said all future correspondence will 'go unread' yet also said 'The more engagement we have, the better.'(how is that for mental gymnastics), I will ALWAYS respond because we did and still do the right thing. I await your reply and willing to discuss. You can do so here or call me, you’re choice.
And yes, this is a good forum for this so we can clear the air for the record(if it doesn’t get magically deleted again} but doesn’t bother anyone who doesn’t care to read this.
Cheers,
:-Don
-
the other martin
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: Chilliwack
Re: BCHPA Funding
Nikita,
Transparency and open discussion is a good thing. It should never be stifled or deleted. Condescension serves no purpose. Build bridges and not walls.
Transparency and open discussion is a good thing. It should never be stifled or deleted. Condescension serves no purpose. Build bridges and not walls.
Re: BCHPA Funding
Martin, as you can see Don is posting now without being stiffled, complaining about misinformation while spreading it himself.
I have a lawyer's legal opinion to back up my claim that the past BCHPA board's removal of our elected director last year was illegal, and ample evidence to corroborate that and other claims I made. I presented all that at the last BCHPA AGM, which the members present, most of whom were local Okanagan / interior folks and not "my crew", have apparently found conclusive enough to act on. Don was present and in fact chairing that AGM so he had ample opportunity to defend the board's actions, and he did, using much of the same claims as what he's saying now.
Beyond this bit of context that I didn't want to unnecessarily put to light again, arguing about this again with all the same words that were already said at the last BCHPA AGM does not serve a purpose other than to satisfy the participants' egos, so I will do my best to refrain from that, even if that leaves misinformation unaddressed. Others may have different approaches, I'm not the boss of anyone. Anyone who feels they're not up to date on what happened at the last AGM is free to raise the issue again at the upcoming BCHPA AGM.
I have a lawyer's legal opinion to back up my claim that the past BCHPA board's removal of our elected director last year was illegal, and ample evidence to corroborate that and other claims I made. I presented all that at the last BCHPA AGM, which the members present, most of whom were local Okanagan / interior folks and not "my crew", have apparently found conclusive enough to act on. Don was present and in fact chairing that AGM so he had ample opportunity to defend the board's actions, and he did, using much of the same claims as what he's saying now.
Beyond this bit of context that I didn't want to unnecessarily put to light again, arguing about this again with all the same words that were already said at the last BCHPA AGM does not serve a purpose other than to satisfy the participants' egos, so I will do my best to refrain from that, even if that leaves misinformation unaddressed. Others may have different approaches, I'm not the boss of anyone. Anyone who feels they're not up to date on what happened at the last AGM is free to raise the issue again at the upcoming BCHPA AGM.
Last edited by raquo on Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nikita
-
the other martin
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:57 pm
- Location: Chilliwack
Re: BCHPA Funding
Transparency and open discussion. Also building bridges and not walls. Good to see. Keep up the good work.
Re: BCHPA Funding
The past BCHPA board funded some great projects and did some great work. Hooray! Community benefit!
The current BCHPA board is working on funding current and future projects. Hooray! Community benefit!
We're mostly volunteers, spending our valuable time for no money or glory. Hooray! Community benefit!
Free flight is a sport we're all passionate about, we do it because it's enjoyable. Hooray! Personal, life-enriching benefit!
Reducing ourselves to hunting for skeletons in closets, pursuing personal grudge matches.. No bueno! No benefit to anyone!
Closing the book on old grudge matches, looking forward so we can continue to develop our awesome sport... Hooray! Community/personal benefit!
This will be my only post on this topic. I apologize in advance for its weird emotional derailment of this pissing match thread.
We're all here because we enjoy free flight (I think?). I still remember every second of my first pg flight in Spain like it just happened. It was something I wanted to do my entire life. I used to climb trees as a kid to get closer to the sky and flew model planes wishing I was in them. When I started flying, I knew my life was changed forever. Now, every time my feet leave the ground I'm literally emotionally moved to near tears. I would trade a day of life on the ground for an hour in the air. I want to share the incredible experience of free flight with others. Not everyone will be as clinically addicted to it as I am, but their lives may be enriched to some degree by the sensation of free-flight, and that's good enough for me. This is the only reason I have a 'leadership' role in our club and sport. I want to help other pilots build their experience, mentor and be mentored, promote safety, and through all of this contribute to strengthening and building our community, in the footsteps of all past club, association, and individual volunteers. I hope most other volunteer leaders in our esoteric world have a similar emotional attachment. Otherwise, what's the point? For me, this all comes at a considerable cost to my busy professional and personal life. And it's 100% worth it.
The flying community at large suffers when volunteer leaders get tied up in this BS. Literally, nobody gives a shit about past pg/hg grudges, and nobody is going to 'win' anything here. Probably 6 people will see this. It's a giant fu*king waste of time and energy. Let's focus our collective efforts on building our AWESOME sport, not living in the past.
The current BCHPA board is working on funding current and future projects. Hooray! Community benefit!
We're mostly volunteers, spending our valuable time for no money or glory. Hooray! Community benefit!
Free flight is a sport we're all passionate about, we do it because it's enjoyable. Hooray! Personal, life-enriching benefit!
Reducing ourselves to hunting for skeletons in closets, pursuing personal grudge matches.. No bueno! No benefit to anyone!
Closing the book on old grudge matches, looking forward so we can continue to develop our awesome sport... Hooray! Community/personal benefit!
This will be my only post on this topic. I apologize in advance for its weird emotional derailment of this pissing match thread.
We're all here because we enjoy free flight (I think?). I still remember every second of my first pg flight in Spain like it just happened. It was something I wanted to do my entire life. I used to climb trees as a kid to get closer to the sky and flew model planes wishing I was in them. When I started flying, I knew my life was changed forever. Now, every time my feet leave the ground I'm literally emotionally moved to near tears. I would trade a day of life on the ground for an hour in the air. I want to share the incredible experience of free flight with others. Not everyone will be as clinically addicted to it as I am, but their lives may be enriched to some degree by the sensation of free-flight, and that's good enough for me. This is the only reason I have a 'leadership' role in our club and sport. I want to help other pilots build their experience, mentor and be mentored, promote safety, and through all of this contribute to strengthening and building our community, in the footsteps of all past club, association, and individual volunteers. I hope most other volunteer leaders in our esoteric world have a similar emotional attachment. Otherwise, what's the point? For me, this all comes at a considerable cost to my busy professional and personal life. And it's 100% worth it.
The flying community at large suffers when volunteer leaders get tied up in this BS. Literally, nobody gives a shit about past pg/hg grudges, and nobody is going to 'win' anything here. Probably 6 people will see this. It's a giant fu*king waste of time and energy. Let's focus our collective efforts on building our AWESOME sport, not living in the past.
James Elliott
Re: BCHPA Funding
Well hi Martin, long time no chat. Hope all is well.
Oh Nikita, there you go agian. Making accusations without backing, so I have to respond. Exactly what specific misinformation am I supposedly spreading. I spoke exactly to what was demonstratably misinformation in Tom's post and you claim misinformation from me without a single shred of evidence. If you are going to make the claim you better be able to back it big guy and as usual you haven't.
As for your lawyer, a great waste of time. I really hope you did not use pilots' funds to consult that lawyer, he didn't tell you anything we didn't already know and you still keep missing the point because of your bias.
So here we go again:
a) The irresponsible board member breached the bylaws and constitution first (already stated above and in last year's AGM and you continue to ignore that)
b) that put us in an untenable position, for the board becomes in breach and cannot do their job
c) Board has to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing the site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
See Nikita, you waste your lawyers time on what we already new but you never investigate the board members breach that put us in that mess in the first place - a clear bias. I love your doggedness and energy but if you only do part of the homework and keep missing the big picture, this will go on forever.
So AGAIN, we took the path which said, if you are going to be in breach anyway, do the least damage and protect the site. You can complain about that all day but it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. So no apology from us on that.
"have apparently found conclusive enough to act on"
Have no idea what that means. Love vague statements that mean nothing, Perry Mason.
And yes, same claims, ahem statements which are backed with evidence, because I don't change the truth, that is what happened and I can re-iterate it a thousand times and the truth will not change, how does this surprise you? And about half of the pilots were Okanagan, and your crew is tiny but loud - not that that matters..
"misinformation unaddressed"
And again with vague accusations. If you need clarification, call me. If you don't agree with something I've said, call me. But this vague accusation thing is for children.
Look, I was happy to leave all that behind and had not interest as to what happens to BCHPA as it has no effect on me, I am long gone. I was pulled back into this mess because I was recently told that the post where I responded to Tom's post originally back last December had been deleted. And as I specified above, it was my duty to the previous board to find out why and repost so that the fallacies were properly addressed for the record, which I had done all the way back in December of last year - that was all. And then Nikita had to bring it all up again so I had to respond. I have no interest in this crap but I will not leave lies unaddressed and will use SPECIFICS to address them. If anyone needs clarification, I will answer any and all questions because we have nothing to hide and being responsive is just the respectful thing to do, otherwise, you guys can keep creating your own fun, I am having a ball out here without the silliness.
"Transparency and open discussion. Also building bridges and not walls. Good to see. Keep up the good work."
Absolutely Martin, that's how we come to adult resolutions.
"The flying community at large suffers when volunteer leaders get tied up in this BS. Literally, nobody gives a shit about past pg/hg grudges, and nobody is going to 'win' anything here."
James, you are also missing the point. If someone posts slander against the well meaning, hard working people that you work with, it is your duty to stand up for them, and that is all I did by chasing down why the original post was deleted and reposting for the record. Only because further accusations were laid that I had to respond to those. Adults stand up for their ethics, that is simply just how it is done. It is a real shame we see less and less of that these days.
And the great things about forums is that as you established, only 6 people have to be bothered with this so don't let it bother you so much, just go and do your thing.
So unless Nikita wants to try to backup his accusations here(I suggest you just call me because you can do so at any time) I guess we are done here.
Cheers,
:-Don
Oh Nikita, there you go agian. Making accusations without backing, so I have to respond. Exactly what specific misinformation am I supposedly spreading. I spoke exactly to what was demonstratably misinformation in Tom's post and you claim misinformation from me without a single shred of evidence. If you are going to make the claim you better be able to back it big guy and as usual you haven't.
As for your lawyer, a great waste of time. I really hope you did not use pilots' funds to consult that lawyer, he didn't tell you anything we didn't already know and you still keep missing the point because of your bias.
So here we go again:
a) The irresponsible board member breached the bylaws and constitution first (already stated above and in last year's AGM and you continue to ignore that)
b) that put us in an untenable position, for the board becomes in breach and cannot do their job
c) Board has to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing the site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
See Nikita, you waste your lawyers time on what we already new but you never investigate the board members breach that put us in that mess in the first place - a clear bias. I love your doggedness and energy but if you only do part of the homework and keep missing the big picture, this will go on forever.
So AGAIN, we took the path which said, if you are going to be in breach anyway, do the least damage and protect the site. You can complain about that all day but it was the right thing to do under the circumstances. So no apology from us on that.
"have apparently found conclusive enough to act on"
Have no idea what that means. Love vague statements that mean nothing, Perry Mason.
And yes, same claims, ahem statements which are backed with evidence, because I don't change the truth, that is what happened and I can re-iterate it a thousand times and the truth will not change, how does this surprise you? And about half of the pilots were Okanagan, and your crew is tiny but loud - not that that matters..
"misinformation unaddressed"
And again with vague accusations. If you need clarification, call me. If you don't agree with something I've said, call me. But this vague accusation thing is for children.
Look, I was happy to leave all that behind and had not interest as to what happens to BCHPA as it has no effect on me, I am long gone. I was pulled back into this mess because I was recently told that the post where I responded to Tom's post originally back last December had been deleted. And as I specified above, it was my duty to the previous board to find out why and repost so that the fallacies were properly addressed for the record, which I had done all the way back in December of last year - that was all. And then Nikita had to bring it all up again so I had to respond. I have no interest in this crap but I will not leave lies unaddressed and will use SPECIFICS to address them. If anyone needs clarification, I will answer any and all questions because we have nothing to hide and being responsive is just the respectful thing to do, otherwise, you guys can keep creating your own fun, I am having a ball out here without the silliness.
"Transparency and open discussion. Also building bridges and not walls. Good to see. Keep up the good work."
Absolutely Martin, that's how we come to adult resolutions.
"The flying community at large suffers when volunteer leaders get tied up in this BS. Literally, nobody gives a shit about past pg/hg grudges, and nobody is going to 'win' anything here."
James, you are also missing the point. If someone posts slander against the well meaning, hard working people that you work with, it is your duty to stand up for them, and that is all I did by chasing down why the original post was deleted and reposting for the record. Only because further accusations were laid that I had to respond to those. Adults stand up for their ethics, that is simply just how it is done. It is a real shame we see less and less of that these days.
And the great things about forums is that as you established, only 6 people have to be bothered with this so don't let it bother you so much, just go and do your thing.
So unless Nikita wants to try to backup his accusations here(I suggest you just call me because you can do so at any time) I guess we are done here.
Cheers,
:-Don
Re: BCHPA Funding
Don, of course, I didn't use any funds of any club / society / non-profit including WCSC, OSA, ISS, BCHPA or HPAC (don't know which others exist, but not them either).
I didn't need a lawyer to tell me the very simple truths that I'm claiming. BC Societies Act is not hard to read. The board does not have authority to remove elected directors without following the procedures required by the BC Societies Act, and the board didn't even come close to following those procedures. There was only a board vote between several board members to remove the director, but there was no special resolution required to remove a director, and no general meeting with the required notice of said special resolution sent to the membership. If those required things had happened, the membership would have been notified about the proposal to remove a director in advance, and would have attended a general meeting to discuss that removal and vote on the special resolution. That's how it should have worked. Instead, the board just had a vote of its own away from the membership.
Aside from that, I also am very confident that the removed director in question did not in fact do anything wrong to justify removal.
Again, we discussed all of this already at the last BCHPA AGM. I don't think I can say anything new to suddenly change your position on the matter after all this time.
I didn't need a lawyer to tell me the very simple truths that I'm claiming. BC Societies Act is not hard to read. The board does not have authority to remove elected directors without following the procedures required by the BC Societies Act, and the board didn't even come close to following those procedures. There was only a board vote between several board members to remove the director, but there was no special resolution required to remove a director, and no general meeting with the required notice of said special resolution sent to the membership. If those required things had happened, the membership would have been notified about the proposal to remove a director in advance, and would have attended a general meeting to discuss that removal and vote on the special resolution. That's how it should have worked. Instead, the board just had a vote of its own away from the membership.
Aside from that, I also am very confident that the removed director in question did not in fact do anything wrong to justify removal.
Again, we discussed all of this already at the last BCHPA AGM. I don't think I can say anything new to suddenly change your position on the matter after all this time.
Nikita
Re: BCHPA Funding
Nikita, you misguided hound dog, let's continue I guess...
"Don, of course, I didn't use any funds of any club"
Good, just checking. I'll take you at your word. I did say "really hope", it was not an accusation, just a friendly nudge
Your buttons are so transparent.
"I didn't need a lawyer to tell me the very simple truths that I'm claiming."
Then one wonders why you wasted their time. C'est la vie.
"BC Societies Act is not hard to read."
I know, read it multiple times during my tenure on 7 previous boards outside of free flight.
"The board does not have...blah blah"
Wow, I wrote that in one sentence in item C above and you took quite a long paragraph to re-iterate the same thing, really, what was the purpose? Literally no one is countering this, no matter how many times you repeat it. But if it makes you fell better, repeat away.
But I'll answer again and just maybe you will figure it out, I am here to help you as much as you need...
c) the Board had to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing a site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
One hopes it might sink in this time.
"I also am very confident that the removed director in question did not in fact do anything wrong."
Well this is where you can feel confident all you like but your 'feelings' don't mean a thing against the facts, and your bias is preventing you from bothering to see the facts and I can't help you on that, that is something you have to solve for yourself.
Perhaps this will help. The 'director' in question that you are so fond in trying to defend did not do a single thing while on the board for the entire year. They attended one meeting, promised to do one thing(a press release, which they kept calling a newsletter - didn't seem to understand the difference), and was told to submit the release for board review, and then immediately after the meeting, passed that duty to their spouse(who was not part of the board), not informing the board of this, and the spouse released, without review or our approval, so they could look active on doing the release(weird narcissistic thing) - and did it wrong because it was done without the board's consultation or approval. When asked why the director did not do it and that it had to be redone to fit policy, the director refused and said we should be "applauding" their spouse for their initiative. Synchophantic drivel. We moved on.
That director then went on to try to gain control and credit for a project that was started a year earlier by the board, not even in their jurisdiction, had no understanding of it, and tried to ramrod approval without ANY discussion or review of the project details. Not how any board I have ever seen operate. Discussion and due diligence are required for any and every submission, but they wanted to bypass that. Look, I don't mind helping along a newbie but I had other board members coming to me asking what was wrong with this person. Again, hindering projects for no good reason but their own ego. We moved on.
When I then asked this person to contact us to garner more participation on the board, they said they were competing and would get back to us in a week or so--4 months went by with no word from them. Finally, after a few meeting reminder emails, they responded after 5 months to attend a last meeting before the AGM. They attended that meeting and promptly revealed sensitive information about a site to their spouse who used that information to broadcast to a group of people who were not privy to that information which could compromise the site. This put her in breach of our by-laws and the societies act(yes, the one I read multiple times) and put us all in breach and this could not be ignored.
So this person, who did nothing useful on the board, actively sabotaged actual work that needed doing, ignored their post for months and then put the board in a very bad position, got us to the point where:
c) the Board had to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing the site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
So ya, they got sacked just two weeks or so before the AGM when they wouldn't have done anything useful anyway(The rest of the board still got all our projects done in the face of all this). Your group is so hyped up on 'defending this person' but they were not doing anything useful anyway. Yes, that does not mitigate the illegality of the sacking but honestly, the board was not going to take the chance of losing a site if the other option was to eject the problem that wasn't going to change anything anyway. SO AGAIN, I stand firmly by the board's decision even if that goes against your personal 'feelings', sorry.
And obviously your group is not going to let up because I noticed that all their resolutions are ending in "to prevent abuse" which is just about the most hilariously useless statement I have ever seen attached to a resolution. Of course every single line in by-laws/laws/acts are to prevent abuse. What paranoid redundant genius came up with that one? Some people just need validation and to look like buffed up heros slaying dragons apparently, ROFLOMAO (and I hate using silly acronyms but this one fits so well if we are going to play by playpen rules.) Yet not one resolution to address the silliness or damage by this irresponsible, politicking 'director'(because that can be ignored - wonderful biases). What a sitcom.
So I wasn't going to bother to attend the gong show that the BCHPA AGM is shaping up to be but now that it is obvious your group isn't going to let this go, I'll pop in just to keep the record straight(blame yourselves for that one) 'cuz who knows what new rumours you guys are going to come up with(the one you guys spun saying that I was going to abscond with BCHPA funds to the Island to start a school there was the height of hilarity. You guys just crack me up.)
Wonderful chatting with you Nikita, as always.
Cheers,
:-Don
(Still ROFLMAO)
"Don, of course, I didn't use any funds of any club"
Good, just checking. I'll take you at your word. I did say "really hope", it was not an accusation, just a friendly nudge
Your buttons are so transparent."I didn't need a lawyer to tell me the very simple truths that I'm claiming."
Then one wonders why you wasted their time. C'est la vie.
"BC Societies Act is not hard to read."
I know, read it multiple times during my tenure on 7 previous boards outside of free flight.
"The board does not have...blah blah"
Wow, I wrote that in one sentence in item C above and you took quite a long paragraph to re-iterate the same thing, really, what was the purpose? Literally no one is countering this, no matter how many times you repeat it. But if it makes you fell better, repeat away.
But I'll answer again and just maybe you will figure it out, I am here to help you as much as you need...
c) the Board had to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing a site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
One hopes it might sink in this time.
"I also am very confident that the removed director in question did not in fact do anything wrong."
Well this is where you can feel confident all you like but your 'feelings' don't mean a thing against the facts, and your bias is preventing you from bothering to see the facts and I can't help you on that, that is something you have to solve for yourself.
Perhaps this will help. The 'director' in question that you are so fond in trying to defend did not do a single thing while on the board for the entire year. They attended one meeting, promised to do one thing(a press release, which they kept calling a newsletter - didn't seem to understand the difference), and was told to submit the release for board review, and then immediately after the meeting, passed that duty to their spouse(who was not part of the board), not informing the board of this, and the spouse released, without review or our approval, so they could look active on doing the release(weird narcissistic thing) - and did it wrong because it was done without the board's consultation or approval. When asked why the director did not do it and that it had to be redone to fit policy, the director refused and said we should be "applauding" their spouse for their initiative. Synchophantic drivel. We moved on.
That director then went on to try to gain control and credit for a project that was started a year earlier by the board, not even in their jurisdiction, had no understanding of it, and tried to ramrod approval without ANY discussion or review of the project details. Not how any board I have ever seen operate. Discussion and due diligence are required for any and every submission, but they wanted to bypass that. Look, I don't mind helping along a newbie but I had other board members coming to me asking what was wrong with this person. Again, hindering projects for no good reason but their own ego. We moved on.
When I then asked this person to contact us to garner more participation on the board, they said they were competing and would get back to us in a week or so--4 months went by with no word from them. Finally, after a few meeting reminder emails, they responded after 5 months to attend a last meeting before the AGM. They attended that meeting and promptly revealed sensitive information about a site to their spouse who used that information to broadcast to a group of people who were not privy to that information which could compromise the site. This put her in breach of our by-laws and the societies act(yes, the one I read multiple times) and put us all in breach and this could not be ignored.
So this person, who did nothing useful on the board, actively sabotaged actual work that needed doing, ignored their post for months and then put the board in a very bad position, got us to the point where:
c) the Board had to choose between illegally sacking the board member or illegally losing the site - both put us in breach of our bylaws and constitution.
So ya, they got sacked just two weeks or so before the AGM when they wouldn't have done anything useful anyway(The rest of the board still got all our projects done in the face of all this). Your group is so hyped up on 'defending this person' but they were not doing anything useful anyway. Yes, that does not mitigate the illegality of the sacking but honestly, the board was not going to take the chance of losing a site if the other option was to eject the problem that wasn't going to change anything anyway. SO AGAIN, I stand firmly by the board's decision even if that goes against your personal 'feelings', sorry.
And obviously your group is not going to let up because I noticed that all their resolutions are ending in "to prevent abuse" which is just about the most hilariously useless statement I have ever seen attached to a resolution. Of course every single line in by-laws/laws/acts are to prevent abuse. What paranoid redundant genius came up with that one? Some people just need validation and to look like buffed up heros slaying dragons apparently, ROFLOMAO (and I hate using silly acronyms but this one fits so well if we are going to play by playpen rules.) Yet not one resolution to address the silliness or damage by this irresponsible, politicking 'director'(because that can be ignored - wonderful biases). What a sitcom.
So I wasn't going to bother to attend the gong show that the BCHPA AGM is shaping up to be but now that it is obvious your group isn't going to let this go, I'll pop in just to keep the record straight(blame yourselves for that one) 'cuz who knows what new rumours you guys are going to come up with(the one you guys spun saying that I was going to abscond with BCHPA funds to the Island to start a school there was the height of hilarity. You guys just crack me up.)
Wonderful chatting with you Nikita, as always.
Cheers,
:-Don
(Still ROFLMAO)