Multiple candidates running for Region IX Director

[rasmussenv]

Reposting with new title - realized that 'shout out to vote' might make people think I am talking politics. So ...

... too late for the Government elections ... but not too late for USHPA Region 9!

I just got my magazine, and found inside that Region 9 is a contested election ... and one of the candidates is our own Hugh! Nice to have the representative be a local!

Last week I got the envelope in the mail with the 'election password' - you need that to vote. Don't miss-place it! Do vote!

[Dan T]

Actually there are two other local pilots seeking the Directorship, Patrick Terry and myself. Patrick Terry was instrumental in two major aspects involved in the reopening the Edith's Gap site. He followed up with the USFS on original contacts that I initiated and others continued to pursue in my absence and he organized the coordinated work party by CHGPA members and the USFS that completed the clearing of the Edith's Gap site. His efforts yielded a reopening of a site that had been overgrown and lost to us for over a decade. His continuing efforts will probably produce one or more landing fields that will be better suited to HG landings than the current primary one. He has also undertaken an initiative to improve the Woodstock site.

I am the other candidate and the current Region 9 Director representing the mid-Atlantic. Do to nobody's fault but my own I missed the opportunity to get my face and resume into the USHPA in time to be included in this month's magazine. My reason for running in the first place was the desire to try to use the platform in an effort to persuade the National Parks Service to open the parks up to Hang Gliding and Paragliding. My initial efforts were met with stonewalling by the NPS. I'd like to try again on the condition that I can obtain more active support by our USHPA members and officers. I presented this platform to the USHPA shortly before the deadline for entries but it did not get published as you can see.

Terry and Hugh would both be excellent choices to represent us.

Dan Tomlinson

[theflyingdude]

I received this missive from LE Herrick last Sunday regarding the fourth candidate for the Regional Director:

I would like to encourage you all to vote for Larry Dennis for Region 9 USHPA Director elections Larry is an active Gynecologist MD - from Roanoke VA and owner of the Eagle Rock Hang Gliding and Paragliding Sites. Larry has developed two launches on his site - One NW the other SE - carved out Two bail out LZ's and negotiated adjacent land owner agreements. Larry has DONE what he says his priorities are.

Larry is a strong proponent of local control over sites.

VOTE FOR LARRY - Please pass the word.


I don't know Larry, but I have heard good things about him and Eagle Rock. There is also a hang glider pilot named Wayne Smith who is running, but I don't believe I've had the opportunity to meet him, either.

Considering that most Regional Director elections involve only one or two candidates running, it's nice to have more folks interested in serving the organization!

JR

[mcelrah]

I think Larry, Patrick and Dan are all excellent candidates as well. (I don't know Wayne, which is the only reason I don't mention him.) It's good to have a lot of talent in the region willing to step up and do the job of RD. I was asked to run by the president of USHPA and the executive director, under the impression that Dan had chosen not to run for re-election. Whoever wins, we will be well-represented. - Hugh

[Dan T]

This year we are blessed with several highly qualified individuals competing to be your Region 9 Representative. Any of these candidates will represent us well.

My own interest in the position stemmed from the desire to use a Directorship as a platform to attempt to persuade the National Parks Service (NPS) to reverse their policy of prohibiting hang gliding and paragliding inside the National Parks. I felt that a Directorship might provide some gravitas to what would otherwise be an individual appeal.

Early in my tenure I learned that a Canadian activist had successfully persuaded the Canadian version of the NPS to alter their policy from generally prohibiting hang gliding and paragliding unless specifically exempted to generally permitting these activities unless specifically prohibited. It was and remains my goal to persuade the US National Parks Service to do the same.

If I am reelected to the position I will redouble my efforts to achieve this change. However my tactics will be different. My first low key attempts to engage the NPS was not successful. This time if initial low key attempts are once again rebuffed out of hand I will appeal to the USHPA members to participate in a letter writing campaign to the appropriate NPS and Dept. of Interior officials and , if necessary, to their elected representatives.

The laws and regulations that generally prohibit us from launching or landing from inside National Parks were written nearly a decade before the sport of hang gliding was established in the US or anywhere else. The regulations could not have been intended to prohibit our free flight activities because our activities did not yet exist.

I'd like to use my candidacy as a referendum on this topic. If you believe we should pursue it at the national level please vote for me. If you believe that we should not then please vote for any one of my worthy opponents. If I win the election on this topic alone it will lend legitimacy to my efforts to get the USHPA executives engaged in the initiative.

Thank you,
Dan Tomlinson
Candidate and Incumbent Director USHPA Region 9

[Ward Odenwald]

Dan T, changing the thread title from: Hugh is running in Region 9! to Why I'm running for Region 9 Director, to promote your agenda - is, to say the least, laughably pathetic and most likely doesn’t resonate with many that read or post on this forum. Why not initiate a new thread instead of trying to highjack this one or better yet, try “redoubling your efforts” on the other local forum (the one that many of us are not allowed to read). Ward

[Dan T]

Ward,

I considered starting a new thread but decided on using this one because it contained comments by the other candidates. I felt that keeping the topic inside the thread that was addressing the election was the more appropriate alternative.

[mcelrah]

Just so ya know: just being a PG pilot doesn't get you on Ellis' list - ya gotta PROVE yourself (that you will really come flying with us - no wannabes, straphangers or kibitzers. It's her list, she makes the rules. - Hugh

[kcarra]

Our Region 9 representative doesn't get millions of dollars or a parade. I think it's wonderful and amazing that we have so many people willing to put time and effort into representing us. The candidates are all civil and supportive of each other so lets extend the same courtesy to them.

[Ward Odenwald]

Hugh, with all due respect to you and the other regoin 9 director candidates, when pilots are communicating their flying experiences and photos from region 9 flying sites on a private forum, a forum that a significant number of USHGPA region 9 pilots are excluded from, that’s wrong. So I ask all region 9 director candidates two questions: 1) Have you participated in any discussion(s) on Ellis’ forum that contains information that other USHGPA members could have benefited from but were not allowed to view the information?; and, 2) What can you do to insure that all USHGPA region 9 members share in information that enhances the safety of our sport?

On a related note, your comment “just being a PG pilot doesn't get you on Ellis' list - ya gotta PROVE yourself” Smacks of exclusion/elitism and coming from an individual running for a position to represent all of us - its troubling! Does this make Ellis the gate-keeper of information that can potentially help all of us? Please explain. Ward

[markc]

Wow, *multiple* contestants for Region IX! Lemme think, when's the last time that happened? Hmmmm.... Like NEVER? *smile*

Seriously, I can't recall an election cycle in which we've had multiple qualified pilots to choose from. And I know for SURE that these forums have never been used to argue the pros and cons of any given candidate.

So we're in uncharted territory here, and I am going to ask for people's patience and tolerance while things are worked out.

I don't think that a *general* topic about the election is the best place for people to challenge a candidate about one particular issue that they take issue with. But at the same time, I realize that people might want to use these forums to have discussions that they care about.

Hmmmm.... Should we start a Region IX Election forum, with one topic per candidate so that they can describe their ideas and respond to questions from area pilots? That would be pretty easy to setup, and it would separate conversation about flying plans from politics....

MarkC

[Ward Odenwald]

All good suggestions Mark, I’d start by having each candidate provide answers to my questions. Plus, here’s a question for you – The original title of this thread “Hugh is running in Region 9! has recently been altered to “Multiple candidates running for Region IX Director” without an editing note indicating that Valerie changed her title. If Valerie didn’t edit the title, please explain the change?

[mcelrah]

Ward, here's my answer about the PG forum:
(1) anybody can start a list-serve and administer it as they see fit - If pilots find it useful, they will subscribe - and abide by the rules set by the moderator, or get kicked out. USHPA has no input.
(2) As mentioned elsewhere, the PG forum was created in part because of several cases of aggressive attitude on the CHGPA forum which made PG pilots unwilling to post candidly there. I admit it's unfortunate that the communities are separated, but the solution - an "invitation-only" list, works for maintaining a constructive flight-coordinating resource. Matt Ingram and others are committed to cross-posting flying plans ( but not incident reports due to the unhelpful tone that has too often characterized activity on the forum). Perhaps a few years of demonstrated good behavior will lure the PG pilots back. Also as mentioned when Patrick Terry solicited input on a possible revamped club IT resource, there are technical characteristics that I think make the e-mail list format more attractive.
I approve this ad. - Hugh

[Ward Odenwald]

Thanks Hugh. On another thread, Dan T proposed a solution that I believe would help elevate the divisive nature of the closed forum – a read only membership. If this is possible, then all will have the freedom to learn more about our flying sites via the forum’s text and photos without breaking up the flow of information. Ward

[mcelrah]

Sounds good. Let's see if Ellis will go for it.
- Hugh

[mcelrah]

If this means a club-run forum, there's the "Sacajawea dollar coin" problem: people will only adopt it if you take away the paper dollar bill (Ellis' list)... - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Upon further reflection, The "read only" idea doesn't sound so good: the trolls could surveil the PG list and then talk trash elsewhere. Ellis says she hasn't had to police the list; everyone just behaves. So it IS an elite list... - Hugh

[theflyingdude]

Upon further reflection, The "read only" idea doesn't sound so good: the trolls could surveil the PG list and then talk trash elsewhere. Ellis says she hasn't had to police the list; everyone just behaves. So it IS an elite list... - Hugh

The trolls could surveil the PG list and then talk trash elsewhere? That's really a concern and the basis for the PG forum being closed to the general public, even on a read-only basis?

If that's really true, it almost sounds like there must be some PG pilots in the group whose egos collapse as easily as their wings in a little turbulence.

First it was attributed to safety, then it was having to "PROVE yourself" worthy, and now it's due to the possibility of "trash-talking elsewhere"? As someone running for Regional Director, do you think this type of separation helps brings us together as a flying community? I would suggest what it promotes is an "us vs. them" mentality that currently divides the two camps despite our large number of commonalities and the common interests we share. To quote Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

JR

[jyoder111]

Drama on the forums?! Must be winter time and too cold to fly already... seriously, it's like clockwork. Usually waits till January at least, though. Sigh.

Sounds like a job for Gary D and his voice of reason. Where's he been anyway?!

Jesse

[mingram]

Good call Jesse. I reached out to our ambassador for calm and reason to see where he's been.

For what it's worth, I have always disliked the fact that the PG forum is private. It makes it difficult for new and visiting pilots to find us and get plugged in. I'd be easier if we all used the same forum. There's good weather analysis specific to paragliding that may be of interest to hang gliders, but I bet you'd find more noise than real useful content unless you're biwingwal because a lot of the time we're just talking about who's going and when we're going to arrive.

The yahoo group experiences intermittent issues with email notifications being delayed or delivered out of order which had a few people seeking alternatives so if we can find a better tool I think people would listen. However, people have to be motivated to change and the past drama on the forum are a deterrent. One suggestion I've heard is to warn people that start drama and then ban them if it continues. That would make for a more welcoming forum.

[Ward Odenwald]

Matt, your suggestion (or someone else’s) of full participation on both the PG and CHGPA forums using the “one or two strikes and your out” rule is a great idea. Given that some of us are admittedly thicker-skinned and enjoy an occasional “dust up” (including Jesse), if the rules of conduct are redefined and enhanced relative to the “boiler plate” standard forum dribble and backed up by a small committee of frequent forum users (both HG and PG pilots) that have the authority to call “the strikes”, I believe all will ultimately benefit. Ward

[deveil]

Damn, there was actually some legitimacy behind all that bluster.

(don't blame me, Jesse made me do it)

[mcelrah]

Well, JR, *you* are the principal example of unhelpful commentary which motivates a strictly moderated list. Thing is, as Mark C. And I were discussing last night after flying Daniel's (ya - one of them hang-flyers somehow found out where us bag wings were going! It was gorgeous - and not too cold at all)), we're not sure you've actually done anything bad enough to get kicked off the forum. So maybe we'll have to tighten up in any new communications regime (there's a committee meeting this week) and kick you out for just being obnoxious as opposed to profane/indecent etc. people are surprised to find that you are actually fairly personable - in person. With Ward, I am someone who relishes polemics on-line - but this can be highly off-putting to newbies - and we lost long-time members from the forum due to disgust at previous flame wars. Words, like actions, have consequences. - Hugh

[mcelrah]

Just to put a finer point on it: yes, if people find that they will be ridiculed or scolded if they post about incidents, they will stop posting. I think we all understand what constructive criticism means. If you actually want to get through to someone, you have to deliver the message in such a way that he/she will want to take it inboard. JR, you are a very experienced pilot who may have a lot to contribute, but your mode of expression on the forum is a problem. I have nothing to do with the committee that is considering how to configure a new IT presence for the club, but you may consider this a "warning". - Hugh

[theflyingdude]

Just to put a finer point on it: yes, if people find that they will be ridiculed or scolded if they post about incidents, they will stop posting. I think we all understand what constructive criticism means. If you actually want to get through to someone, you have to deliver the message in such a way that he/she will want to take it inboard. JR, you are a very experienced pilot who may have a lot to contribute, but your mode of expression on the forum is a problem. I have nothing to do with the committee that is considering how to configure a new IT presence for the club, but you may consider this a "warning". - Hugh

I don't know whether to be flattered or offended, but I wonder who made you/Hugh the arbiter of what's obnoxious and what constitutes "constructive criticism" for this forum or any other. One might read your post/s above and think they border on personal attacks against me and consider that obnoxious. I'm certainly not put-off by your tone or your threat/warning. The forum has many uses and many users and I'm just one of them (and just an occasional poster, at that). I really can't recall any of my specific posts that I would label as "obnoxious", but perhaps like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder. My mode of expression on the forum is pretty much the same as anyone else's so I might suggest any problems you might be having are personal ones, but please feel free to expound if you have some specifics. It never occurred to me that I had such sway.

I think I'm more likely just a convenient target for your rationalizations, but if nothing else, I sincerely hope that this discussion results in something positive, like a reunification!

JR