USHPA Regional Directors 2014 election

[Dan T]

The USHPA election period opened up on the first of November. You should receive a user password in the USPS mail shortly if you haven't received it already. It will enable you to cast an electronic vote through the internet.

The candidates statements, including mine, are posted in the November issue of the magazine. The polls will remain open throughout the month of November and into the first portion of December. Electronic voting instructions will be in the package containing the password.

There are eleven candidates seeking a two-year term in nine of 13 regions. Most candidates are running unopposed. Our Region 9 is an exception. I need your votes. If you vote for me I'll do my best to fulfill the agenda I described in my election statement and I'll make sure that the USHPA does not act contrary to the interests of our Region and the CHGPA's members.

Please take a few moments to vote for me.

Dan Tomlinson
Candidate for Region 9.
H4/P3

[CraginS]

Based on the actual voter turnout of past elections, if every active pilot in CHGPA and MHGA were to vote for the same person, the count would almost guaranty the winner. Both Dan and Felipe have served on the board before. The last time Dan ran our club votes were split because of the confusion with two CHGPA members on the ballot for Region 9.
The numbers are so small, each vote really does make a difference.
Make your choice between two well qualified candidates, but please, do vote.

Cragin

[theflyingdude]

Sorry Dan, but Felipe has done a great job of representing Region 9 over the years and I trust his judgement. He has my vote for a variety of reasons, but I would encourage everyone to vote regardless of your choice of candidates.

JR

[carweill]

Dan,
I usually support anyone who volunteers his/her time for USHPA or our local clubs.
In this case, for many reasons, you have my vote.

Carlos

[Dan T]

Thanks Carlos and thanks for voting JR. I think it's important that the people who get elected to these offices understand the desires and expectations of their constituents. I'd rather win by 1 percentage point with a high turnout than by a landslide where nearly everyone stays home.

Win or lose I hope all of you get out and vote, both in the election and in the General election that occurs tomorrow.

Dan

[CraginS]

The letter came in today's mail.
I voted.

Truth is, we will have solid representation with either candidate winning.
(Sure wish I could say that about my votes tomorrow morning!)

Good luck Dan.

[George]

Waiting for my letter but you have my vote when it arrives Dan. I really like your positive view for the future of foot launch flying in the region and the More Flights for everyone philosophy.

George

[lplehmann]

As a past Region Nine Director, I would like to toss in my two cents on the current Regional Director election.

I will be voting to re-elect Felipe Amunategui for a number of reasons:

-His experience on the Board and ability to work in that often contentious environment. Getting anything done on the BoD is to a great degree a matter of interpersonal skills and a shared understanding of how it operates. Felipe has those skills while Dan’s prior membership ended, by his own admission, in good part because he found working on the Board to be difficult. I too found the meetings to be maddeningly frustrating, however that is the nature of the beast. If you want to run, that is what you’re running for.

-Felipe’s involvement in, and knowledge of the ever more important towing side of the sport is a real asset on the BoD.

-His role in the current project to create a meaningful, confidential and professional accident reporting database is decades overdue, and might bring substantive insights into improving our dubious safety record. Just as the Nall Report has done in General Aviation, perhaps Felipe’s database project will allow us to employ actual facts in our debates about the sport’s safety problems.

-With respect to Dan’s pitch for votes in the magazine, his laudable desire to “produce more pilots, establish more sites, and create more flight opportunities for all of us” is precisely what I have heard from BoD members, schools and club officials for thirty years. It is lovely, pie in the sky dreaminess, and I won’t vote on mere good intentions. Everyone has good intentions. (Thankfully, Dan didn’t advocate that most useless of all steps to be taken to “save the sport”: another damn marketing survey. But I digress).

-Finally, I would like to, delicately, address the unspoken elephant in the room, the ill feeling generated against Felipe within a segment of the CHGPA by his intervention in the Hogback Affair. There are some in the CHGPA who resent Felipe’s actions when he was forced to intervene in that matter. I do not desire to rehash the history as I am not particularly knowledgeable about the specifics. But I would like to provide some context to Felipe’s actions as a Regional Director.

In my ten years as Director the two most malignant situations in which we intervened were local club-level disputes. No matter what I or the BoD did, no one was happy. The reason then (as it likely was in the Hogback Affair) was that the local organizations were internally dysfunctional and antagonistic. Local groups with insoluble problems push them off onto the BoD and/or their Regional Directors. Whatever actions they then take are simply band aids on the local disputes.

In other words, I would caution voters from voting against Felipe for having been (reluctantly) drawn into a mess of the CHGPA’s own making. Vote for him or Dan on your understanding of their individual merits, but don’t vote against Felipe because he couldn’t fix your internal problems. I feel that his mix of skills, experience and energy make him by far the better candidate.

[Ward Odenwald]

Well-said Pete! Felipe’s professional approach toward CHGPA and the rest of region 9’s interests during his tenure (especially last year) should serve as an example for all regional directors.

With regards to growing the sport, I haven’t seen the stats but my gut-feeling is that learning the basics via towing instruction has become a significant entry point so having Filipe’s experience on the Board is, as you said, “a real asset.”

Ward

[carweill]

Hi Pete,
Your contributions to the sport, USHPA and region 9 are valued and respected.
Your opinion is valued and respected as well.
In the choice for director this year I disagree based on my evidence:

1) Maybe not fair to Felipe, but in all his time as a regional director only once I saw his name mentioned. It was during the Hogback incident. For his part I think it could have been handled better.
2) Dan has the ability to diffuse situations. I have witnessed a couple of times, both in person and in the forum. Without making threats, but appealing to reason.
3) Dan also spearheaded the re-opening of Edith’s Gap. The work involved a lot of people. As a result our relationship with US Forest Service improved and provides the basis for improvements in other sites.

Yes the CHGPA is a little dysfunctional maybe because the members are non-homogenous. But you couldn’t tell when the group is flying the local sites.

To everyone, regardless of your choice, VOTE.
When the results are in support your regional director.
USHPA will be facing more challenges with dwindling numbers and sharing the air with UAV drones.

Carlos

[theflyingdude]

Given all the misinformation floating around, I thought I would share a portion of an e-mail I just received from a PG pilot who had written to USHPA President, Rich Haas, to express concerns over the Hogback Two and subsequent fallout from that incident. The following are Rich's comments from that e-mail and are being posted with his permission.

JR

Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts. I’m always glad to hear from you and hopefully, I will always have time to respond—even if it takes a couple days.

Before I get into the Hogsback issues, I want to say; Felipe Amunátegui is one of the best, most effective regional directors at USHPA. I sincerely hope he is re-elected. He chairs the USHPA Towing Committee, which is an important committee. A significant percentage of USHPA members rely on surface towing and aero towing; both of which are regulated by the FAA. Felipe has worked hard to overcome, among other things, challenges from the FAA to limit surface towing to 2,000’—something that would destroy surface towing, as we know it. Felipe is also playing a key role in USHPA’s efforts to update and improve the Accident Reporting System. Through his efforts, his university is sponsoring a research study that, by working through the university’s system, will enable USHPA to assure confidentiality to participants in the accident reporting process. His initiative clears an obstacle that has impeded our efforts for years. Ironically, the final approvals were granted just this week. This has been Felipe’s project and he got it done.

When Dan Tomlinson served his single term as your regional director, he missed two of the four scheduled board meetings. At his second and last board meeting, Dan was privy to a report the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada (“HPAC”) had commissioned as part of their initiative to open Canadian national parks to flying. At the time, USHPA was considering retaining the author of the report to draft a similar report for USHPA to use with the US National Parks Service. Without asking for permission to copy and distribute HPAC's report and knowing USHPA was opposed to Dan meeting with NPS prior to having a well documented study of what we want, Dan went ahead and met with NPS anyway, giving them a copy of the HPAC report. His end-run was detrimental to USHPA. At a minimum, he created a very embarrassing situation between USHPA and the HPAC author. I intended to raise the issue with Dan at the next board meeting but he didn’t attend either of the next two board meeting in his second year. Now he is running against Felipe… Running “against” someone rarely leads to a successful outcome and based on Dan’s track record of skipping meetings and doing whatever he pleases without regard for board policy, I’m hard pressed to be optimistic about Dan serving on the board again.

Dan and I discussed Felipe’s decision to pursue pilot revocations following the Hogsback incident. Dan criticized my leadership style for failing to intervene “and do the right thing” (in his opinion). He lobbied me to interfere with Felipe, when Felipe was exercising his delegated responsibilities as a regional director. Dan is entitled to an opinion, but my failing to interfere with Felipe when he’s doing his job hardly seems like a lack of leadership. For the record, I think Felipe exercised good judgement in how he handled the Hogsback matter. I respect Felipe for not bending in the face of relentless pressure.

You may feel Felipe did bend. Rest assured; Felipe didn’t bow to the pressure coming from Hugh, Dan and others. The opposite is the more likely case. I believe Felipe resisted removing the revocations for as long as he did because he didn’t want to back down to any of these guys after the way they were behaving. He dropped the revocations when (and only when) the pilots in question took responsibility for their actions—which they eventually did.

USHPA generally tries to resolve disciplinary problems with the least amount of intervention needed—provided the behavior changes. If Tom or Lazlo doubt USHPA’s resolve to act swiftly should their behavior become problematic again in the future, they will be surprised.

Hugh McElrath criticizes USHPA for not being more supportive of pilots when they are cited for various offenses. Hugh forgets that Felipe deferred taking any action against these guys until their trial was over. Hugh cites the role AOPA and SSA play as advocates for their members. There is a fundamental difference between the role AOPA and SSA play as advocates and USHPA's role. The FAA expects USHPA self-regulate hang gliding and paragliding so the FAA doesn’t need to get directly involved. AOPA and SSA play no such role. I prefer self-regulation to FAA involvement. USHPA's unique relationship with the FAA is dependent on USHPA's good faith efforts at self-regulation.

USHPA does actively advocate on behalf of pilots, though. In my role as a regional director earlier this season, I helped a pilot who was cited by the Fed’s for landing within a military reservation (but outside of the boundary on FAA sectional maps). She needed a lawyer and I introduced her to a former pilot who agreed to represent her pro bono. He was able to get her charges dropped. I don’t expect Hugh or Dan to know or care about this but the fact is, USHPA advocates for members constantly.

Hugh refers to an enforcement action USHPA addressed at Fort Funston, citing "a black-belt martial artist with an anger management problem”. The pilot he refers to was, in fact, arrested for assaulting a police officer at a chapter meeting I had just attended. The pilot broke some of the officer's ribs and put him out of work for over a month. I understand the pilot did some jail time as a result. Contrary to what Hugh writes, USHPA did not take action against this member. Why? Because his actions didn’t directly involve a flying-related incident nor did they jeopardize the site.

USHPA did permanently expel one member and suspend a second member for a year for their behavior while flying at Fort Funston. They jeopardized the safety of others as well as the site. Contrary to Hugh’s inference, the expulsion hearing was done in open session and I believe the process was done fairly. The California court agreed. The permanently expelled member sued USHPA and the court found in favor of USHPA on all counts.

Hugh accuses Felipe of acting “without even hearing the pilot’s side of the story”. I understand the two Hogsback pilot(s) were found guilty by a court of law. The pilots were represented by counsel. Felipe waited to take action until the court made its finding. Shouldn’t USHPA be able to rely on a court’s findings? Had Felipe followed through with permanent revocations, both members would have been entitled to the same appeal process at USHPA as any other member facing a revocation. So once again, I disagree with Hugh.

Felipe should be held accountable by the members in your region—and so should Dan Tomlinson. If members take the time to separate the emotion and baseless claims from the facts, I believe Felipe will have earned their vote. While I’m not interested in participating in the politics of regional director elections, I feel it is important to clear the air related to a number of mischaracterizations being made by two former RD’s. I stand behind what I’m writing. You are welcome to share my comments.

Rich Hass
President, USHPA

[Dan T]

Rich, if you are reading this you and I are going to a little conversation should I be fortunate enough to win this election. My view of the circumstances including the results of the several conversations I had with the woman who was instrumental in getting the Canadian version of the National Parks Service to shift their policies in favor of permitting HG and PG inside their parks, is more than a little different than yours.

I will be the first to admit that I made that I made some mistakes during my first term as a Regional Director. However those mistakes were all made in the context of attempting to accomplish something we'd been unable to accomplish in the past. To my knowledge nobody was seriously advocating opening up the US National Parks to our activities until I made it a part of my campaign agenda.

As I said earlier I learned from those mistakes. The evidence of that is in my promise to work with the various committees to increase our membership numbers and flying opportunities, rather than going it alone. The Europeans have twenty times our numbers on a per-capita basis. I think there is much that can be improved in our own organization.

Dan Tomlinson
Candidate for Region 9 Director.

[markc]

This topic has been moved to the Club Affairs forum, per the charter of the Flight Topics forum.

It's an important issue, and I encourage further (civilized, polite, yay!) discussion.

I also realize that there's a fine line : Important issues DO need to be brought to the attention of area pilots, who might otherwise be focused on the "lets-just-fly-and-have-fun" side of things.

But debate about candidate qualifications, re-hashing past events, all that sort of stuff? *Definitely* over here, in Club Affairs.

That said: If you feel there are important developments in this thread that need to be communicated, then by all means, create additional posts in the Flight Topics forum. But you should direct people over *here*, where the discussion can continue.

So hopefully we can achieve a middle-ground, keeping Flight Topics "on-topic", yet reminding pilots of important developments within this thread.

MarkC

[mcelrah]

OK, I am posting the regrettable string from JRs list and the PG list. It'll take a couple of posts. Below is what we are getting out of Felipe: inarticulate rage and menace. He told me that in the end, the reason for doubling down on Tom's and Laszlo's P4 revocations was that I had pissed him off. Richard Hass (USHPA president) has confirmed it (see next post). Now, my rough handling of Felipe was not the most diplomatic thing to do, but I don't think we want a director that regards *very polite* e-mails from a large majority of the club membership in support of the Hogback 2 - as some sort of illegitimate pressure. As Rich maintains, the regional director gets a lot of latitude in how he does his job - and that our only real way of influencing how business is conducted is at the election. I suggest we should prefer a director who does not come on like a mafia boss.
- Hugh

Read what I wrote to you genius. If you need further assistance comprehending the consequences of your defamation, keep doing what you have been.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Hugh McElrath <mcelrah@gmail.com> wrote:
Luis Felipe Amunategui

8:40 AM (3 hours ago)



to me

Heug,
I am receiving a lot of text from you. It is not going unnoticed. I already approached you once personally about your defamatory statements. Cease and desist now. There will not be a second request.

OK Felipe - what do you have to say for yourself? - Hugh


On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:54 AM, wuffo1@aol.com [dmv_pg] <dmv_pg@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks Hugh, you've done a yeoman's job of diplomatically setting the record straight and I think now is the time to let this topic go. It's been discussed to death and there are more important issues at hand.


If we have accomplished nothing else we have engaged our members in the political process that is essential for the long term health of any elected body. It will be interesting to see if the voter participation numbers in this election are substantially higher than they have been in the past. I'd be willing to wager that they will be. That alone is an accomplishment.


Dan


-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh McElrath mcelrah@gmail.com [dmv_pg] <dmv_pg@yahoogroups.com>
To: Jim Rowan <theflyingdude@yahoo.com>
Cc: Patrick Halfhill <ptewireless@live.com>; dmv_pg <dmv_pg@yahoogroups.com>; mcgowantk <mcgowantk@yahoo.com>; lawrence lehmann <lplehmann@msn.com>; Dennis Pagen <pagenbks@lazerlink.com>; aviator2003 <aviator2003@hotmail.com>; johnreadinglandscapes <john.readinglandscapes@comcast.net>; markgardner100 <markgardner100@gmail.com>; benherrick37 <benherrick37@gmail.com>; pauldonahue194 <paul.donahue1@verizon.net>; griffamania <griffamania@excite.com>; darbbb <darbbb@gmail.com>; tnahrath <tnahrath@eickhoff.us>; peterfwells <peterfwells@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 6, 2014 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: [dmv_pg] Fwd: USHPA Regional Director Election


Well, thanks for reposting, JR. Let me begin by stipulating that those who serve on the USHPA board are volunteers who, for years in many cases, give many hours of uncompensated work to the organization. USHPA could not function without these donations of often-unglamorous organizational work given by these volunteers. Having said that, my impression from my brief time on the board is that it is also a "clubby" group who can be surprised and annoyed if anybody "makes waves". I received such complaints about Dan's performance on the board and I now regard these complaints as an endorsement…




__._,_.___

[mcelrah]

My replies to some of Rich Hass' remarks are inserted in brackets below:

Thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts. I’m always glad to hear from you and hopefully, I will always have time to respond—even if it takes a couple days.

Before I get into the Hogsback issues, I want to say; Felipe Amunátegui is one of the best, most effective regional directors at USHPA. I sincerely hope he is re-elected. He chairs the USHPA Towing Committee, which is an important committee. A significant percentage of USHPA members rely on surface towing and aero towing; both of which are regulated by the FAA. Felipe has worked hard to overcome, among other things, challenges from the FAA to limit surface towing to 2,000’—something that would destroy surface towing, as we know it. Felipe is also playing a key role in USHPA’s efforts to update and improve the Accident Reporting System. Through his efforts, his university is sponsoring a research study that, by working through the university’s system, will enable USHPA to assure confidentiality to participants in the accident reporting process. His initiative clears an obstacle that has impeded our efforts for years. Ironically, the final approvals were granted just this week. This has been Felipe’s project and he got it done.

When Dan Tomlinson served his single term as your regional director, he missed two of the four scheduled board meetings. At his second and last board meeting, Dan was privy to a report the Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association of Canada (“HPAC”) had commissioned as part of their initiative to open Canadian national parks to flying. At the time, USHPA was considering retaining the author of the report to draft a similar report for USHPA to use with the US National Parks Service. Without asking for permission to copy and distribute HPAC's report and knowing USHPA was opposed to Dan meeting with NPS prior to having a well documented study of what we want, Dan went ahead and met with NPS anyway, giving them a copy of the HPAC report. His end-run was detrimental to USHPA. At a minimum, he created a very embarrassing situation between USHPA and the HPAC author. I intended to raise the issue with Dan at the next board meeting but he didn’t attend either of the next two board meeting in his second year. Now he is running against Felipe… Running “against” someone rarely leads to a successful outcome and based on Dan’s track record of skipping meetings and doing whatever he pleases without regard for board policy, I’m hard pressed to be optimistic about Dan serving on the board again.

[I commend to all reading Dan's statement published in the USHPA magazine: he is running based on positive things that he wants to accomplish for the sport. Yes, this means he (and I) think things like preserving sites and opening new ones, recruiting and retaining pilots in the sport - are the proper work of the Association (and that enforcement actions against pilots should be reserved for only the most egregious cases, such as the Fort Funston one - this is not an activity we should be looking for opportunities to exercise - it's bad for the sport.]

Dan and I discussed Felipe’s decision to pursue pilot revocations following the Hogsback incident. Dan criticized my leadership style for failing to intervene “and do the right thing” (in his opinion). He lobbied me to interfere with Felipe, when Felipe was exercising his delegated responsibilities as a regional director. Dan is entitled to an opinion, but my failing to interfere with Felipe when he’s doing his job hardly seems like a lack of leadership. For the record, I think Felipe exercised good judgement in how he handled the Hogsback matter. I respect Felipe for not bending in the face of relentless pressure.

[Felipe (and the CHGPA - repeat CHGPA - board) missed a golden opportunity to leave well enough alone. How did it benefit the sport to demand apologies or go after these pilots' ratings after they had already paid fines and lawyer fees? The case was resolved in a way that resulted in *greater* site access. There was no suggestion that the pilots would re-offend. "Self-governance" should not be worse than direct FAA governance. FAA at least provides due process and a more measured approach to enforcement actions than Felipe did in this case.]

You may feel Felipe did bend. Rest assured; Felipe didn’t bow to the pressure coming from Hugh, Dan and others. The opposite is the more likely case. I believe Felipe resisted removing the revocations for as long as he did because he didn’t want to back down to any of these guys after the way they were behaving. He dropped the revocations when (and only when) the pilots in question took responsibility for their actions—which they eventually did.

[Yup, Felipe let his ego get in the way of fixing the mess that he made. Rich and others seem to set great store by extracting letters of apology/promises to "sin no more". I am reminded of the U.S. POWs in Vietnam blinking "T O R T U R E" in Morse code while they were on camera. To be sure, revocation of ratings is a far cry from torture, but you get the idea: the pilots signed what they had to to get their ratings back. At least it wasn't a public apology, as CHGPA had initially demanded.]

USHPA generally tries to resolve disciplinary problems with the least amount of intervention needed—provided the behavior changes. If Tom or Lazlo doubt USHPA’s resolve to act swiftly should their behavior become problematic again in the future, they will be surprised.

[Boy, he's really got it in for these guys! These are not bandit pilots who make a habit of breaking rules; rather, they are the most active pilots, the ones who fly cross-country and encourage others to. Now, if you fly a lot, including XC, you will have more "experiences" - land in unusual places, for example. I know all of us drive 55 mph, report all incidental income to the IRS and stay 1000 feet away from clouds…]

Hugh McElrath criticizes USHPA for not being more supportive of pilots when they are cited for various offenses. Hugh forgets that Felipe deferred taking any action against these guys until their trial was over. Hugh cites the role AOPA and SSA play as advocates for their members. There is a fundamental difference between the role AOPA and SSA play as advocates and USHPA's role. The FAA expects USHPA self-regulate hang gliding and paragliding so the FAA doesn’t need to get directly involved. AOPA and SSA play no such role. I prefer self-regulation to FAA involvement. USHPA's unique relationship with the FAA is dependent on USHPA's good faith efforts at self-regulation.

[How many unjustified rating revocations per year do we need to keep FAA off our backs?]

USHPA does actively advocate on behalf of pilots, though. In my role as a regional director earlier this season, I helped a pilot who was cited by the Fed’s for landing within a military reservation (but outside of the boundary on FAA sectional maps). She needed a lawyer and I introduced her to a former pilot who agreed to represent her pro bono. He was able to get her charges dropped. I don’t expect Hugh or Dan to know or care about this but the fact is, USHPA advocates for members constantly.

Hugh refers to an enforcement action USHPA addressed at Fort Funston, citing "a black-belt martial artist with an anger management problem”. The pilot he refers to was, in fact, arrested for assaulting a police officer at a chapter meeting I had just attended. The pilot broke some of the officer's ribs and put him out of work for over a month. I understand the pilot did some jail time as a result. Contrary to what Hugh writes, USHPA did not take action against this member. Why? Because his actions didn’t directly involve a flying-related incident nor did they jeopardize the site.

USHPA did permanently expel one member and suspend a second member for a year for their behavior while flying at Fort Funston. They jeopardized the safety of others as well as the site. Contrary to Hugh’s inference, the expulsion hearing was done in open session and I believe the process was done fairly. The California court agreed. The permanently expelled member sued USHPA and the court found in favor of USHPA on all counts.

[These details on the Funston case confirm that it was several orders of magnitude worse than Hogback.]

Hugh accuses Felipe of acting “without even hearing the pilot’s side of the story”. I understand the two Hogsback pilot(s) were found guilty by a court of law. The pilots were represented by counsel. Felipe waited to take action until the court made its finding. Shouldn’t USHPA be able to rely on a court’s findings? Had Felipe followed through with permanent revocations, both members would have been entitled to the same appeal process at USHPA as any other member facing a revocation. So once again, I disagree with Hugh.

[Again I ask: how does it advance the sport to pile on rating revocations after pilots have already paid fines and lawyers? Rich is quite clear that Felipe was acting within his authority as Regional Director; that means that those of us who feel his actions were unfair and ill-advised, that his angry rejection of constituent input was inappropriate, as was his - excuse me - *lying* to us about what he would do and then hiding behind the other RD and Rich Hass - leave us no choice but to use our votes to correct his behavior.]

[What Felipe might have learned if he had bothered to ask questions before acting was:
pilots had flown paragliders at Hogback a number of times with the knowledge and apparent consent of the park rangers; now, I'm not endorsing the idea of knowingly exceeding the terms of a permit - as they learned to their sorrow, all it took was a new ranger who actually knew the difference between HG and PG to put them in big trouble - but this is a far cry from defying law enforcement or doing something unsafe as in the Funston case.]

Felipe should be held accountable by the members in your region—and so should Dan Tomlinson. If members take the time to separate the emotion and baseless claims from the facts, I believe Felipe will have earned their vote. While I’m not interested in participating in the politics of regional director elections, I feel it is important to clear the air related to a number of mischaracterizations being made by two former RD’s. I stand behind what I’m writing. You are welcome to share my comments.

I stand behind my comments, too - Hugh McElrath

[theflyingdude]

We get it, Hugh. Everyone else in involved in the Hogback Two incident (the former CHGPA board, the USHPA board, Felipe, the National Park Service, the park ranger, etc) were wrong and we need Dan (and you) to set things right. You've done more to polarize the situation than any other single entity and regardless of the outcome of this RD election, I think you've poisoned the well with your vitriol.

JR

[mcelrah]

"Polarized the situation"…with "vitriol". I leave it to others to judge who started this and who uses intemperate language. - Hugh

[mcelrah]

I would say the Hogback Four - note: four, but only two were punished - were running a risk when they exceeded the terms of the permit and relied on the rangers not knowing or caring about the difference between HG and PG. A new ranger showed up who did know the difference and it cost them a lot. Then, unduly influenced by you and another pilot - who is neither a member of CHGPA or USHPA - the CHGPA board missed a golden opportunity to leave well enough alone and demanded *public* apologies, which were not forthcoming. I don't know why people set so much store by apologies - this was unnecessary and not constructive - there was no likelihood of the pilots re-offending after paying some thousands (!) of dollars in legal fees. So CHGPA - again unwisely - referred the matter to USHPA. Enter Felipe, who promptly and without asking any questions - including of the pilots themselves - announced that their ratings were revoked. After widespread protest by the pilot community, which was scrupulously polite (not in my case), and which pointed out that the CHGPA board did not accurately represent the position of the majority of club members, Felipe agreed to suspend the revocations. But then, unannounced, he pushed them through anyway - and then went silent, refusing to take calls or respond to e-mails, and furiously demanding that we "shut up", as he continues to do. We protested to Rich Hass, who backed Felipe up, saying that he was acting within his authority as RD. Both Felipe and Rich appear to regard constituent input, even very respectfully expressed, as illegitimate "pressure". But it's pretty clear that USHPA recognized that this was not a case for rating revocation and they were looking for a face-saving way out. The new CHGPA president crafted a solution - demonstrating that relations with NPS and the Forest Service were healthy and sites were being re-opened, not closed - and the pilots got their ratings back after signing non-public apologies/agreements to "sin no more". So there's plenty of blame to go around for this sorry affair - and credit to Patrick Terry. That's enough - let's vote. - Hugh

[Dan T]

The USHPA Directors voting closes on December 15. If you haven't yet voted or if you've received an email from USHPA informing you that they had to discard your vote do to an administrative problem, (they informed me that this applies only to those who voted in the opening week), then please take the time to vote before before voting closes on Monday.

History has demonstrated that these elections are often won by individuals receiving just a few handfuls of votes. Your vote could easily make the difference. If you will elect me I'll do my best to assure that the interests of the CHGPA and other chapters of our region are not lost in the din of activity at the National level.

Dan Tomlinson
candidate for Region 9