Flyfunston

According to the minutes of the last meeting, the Club voted to limit posting on “the discussion board to voting members only”. Among the non-voting members now excluded are pilots regularly flying at Funston and contributing to the site but for various reasons are not members, visiting pilots, our landlord, the President of USHPA and the newly designated Webcam Lens Cleaner.

Excluding non-members from access to financial or similar information would be less restrictive but since Fellow Feathers is a public corporation, there is little that can be kept confidential or should be kept confidential.

The minutes also state that the Club president is in communication with a reporter doing an article on the Club. The one who should be in communication is Dave Chavez. Dave is a founding member of the Club. He and his son pioneered the site and he has pictures of Funston in the old days.

For the record, I have purchased flying "stickers" through the club, but I don't know if that makes me a member or not.

As of this moment, I do appear to be able to post to this forum. I don't know if that's intended to be changed or not. If the intention is to keep non-members off the forum, I've posted my interest in becoming a member.

Funston is a great site. I've flown there several times. I don't mind helping support the club and its members.

I would appreciate clarification on the intent and implementation of what I've read in the recent club minutes.

Thanks.
Bob Kuczewski

Bob, Dan, et al,

First off, let me say that this was not my idea. I did not write the language, make the motion or second it. That said being, I did vote in favor of the motion and I'll tell you why. I'm not a club officer so my opinion does not necessarily reflect club policy or other members.

I believe the main concern of the member who raised the issue was club liability.
My own concern is that some discussions can get personal and petty and do not fairly represent the general membership our club to the park service and local TV and newspapers. I don’t care for censorship and wouldn’t want to stop someone from speaking their mind, gawd knows I like to do that myself, but I strongly believe that there are some discussions on the internet that are best kept within our ranks. In fighting between our members is less than flattering and I would like the public face of the Fellow Feathers of Fort Funston Hang Gliding Club to be more professional and represent the sport of hang gliding in the best possible light.

There are other online forums such as HG.org, HGAA.org, Facebook, etc where people can have all the social interaction they want. I do not feel that it is in our clubs best interest to host another forum like these.

I do believe that our members should have a forum to discuss Fort Funston related topics and that the club should host a members only board for that. In addition I'd like to see public forums where newbie’s can ask questions about getting started at Funston, list contact info for club officers and mentors, where members can post photos and videos, and of course an official announcement board for club events and notices, and a location for club minutes. I believe that the Board is on-board with this train of thought.

Chuck is in the process of upgrading our web hosting and making other IT improvements, so the implementation of the motion might take some time. The Board is in the process of refining the project and will post clear and defined rules and outline of the new format.

I’d say just be patient for now and watch for the finished product.

Hi Steve,

Free speech is always a slippery slope. Any organization that tries to deal with it (as I am now on USHawks.org) knows that it's tough. Just read my interactions with several members on that forum and you'll see my own struggles with this issue.

But the dangers of censorship far outweigh the inconvenience (and sometimes the embarrassment) of free speech. From an engineering standpoint, censorship is like cutting out a feedback path. Feedback paths tend to make systems stable. Removing them tends to make them unstable. Someone needs to be able to say that the King has no clothes. If you deny people their ability to do that, then you'll be disenfranchising them to the point that they will likely separate and form another organization. That's exactly what happened in San Diego, and that's why we now have two clubs. That's also what's been happening at USHPA and that fuels interests in alternatives like the HGAA and the USHawks. Please don't create those same conditions at Funston by silencing critics. Embrace criticism and you'll have a far better club. That's my friendly advice.

Finally, I asked a simple question about who will be able to post, who won't be able to post, and what are the membership requirements to be able to post. Could you (or someone from the board) please state those in clear terms?

Thanks in advance,
Bob Kuczewski

Hi again Steve,

I poked around on the site and found the club's bylaws. They state:

ARTICLE V: MEMBERSHIP

Section 1: Membership is open to anyone paying the annual dues and interested in the sport of hang gliding regardless of race, creed, sex or national origin.

Section 2: There shall be two classes of members, voting and non-voting. Voting members shall be pilots who have flown hang gliders at Fort Funston for more than 20 hours in the calendar year preceding the year in which they are entitled to vote. All members who are not voting members shall be non-voting members. Voting members may vote on matter of Club business and in Club elections. Non-voting members may not vote on matters of Club business and in Club elections. By majority vote the Executive Committee shall determine whether members are voting or non-voting. In making its determination, the Executive Committee shall consider logs, pilot statements and all other relevant information. By majority vote the Executive Committee may waive the 20-hour flying requirement to allow members who have made contributions to flying at Fort Funston to become voting members. The Executive Committee shall not waive the flying requirement for more than 3 members at any one time.

So according to that, anyone who hasn't flown 20 hours in the calendar year preceding the current year would not be a voting member. Is the club saying that such members would be prohibited from posting to this forum?

I'm just looking for clarification here. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Bob Kuczewski

Hi Bob,
Glad you found our bylaws, you have quoted the applicable Article.

Yes, this particular discussion board would be limited to Voting Members only. On that discussion board Voting Members may say anything they like, un-censored. The intent of this particular discussion board is for club business. The club has the right to host a board for club business and to restrict participation on that discussion board to those who can vote on that club business.

Dan Brown wrote the body of Article V in regard to Voting Membership and he can give you the details of why it is written the way it is.
I think you will appreciate it!

If a person wants to have a say in how the club is run, he can meet the 20 hr/year and other requirements, become a member, and come to meetings. Those are the people who have an actual stake in the site (they fly Funston) and are taking the time to run the club. This discussion board lately has created a bad public image for the club, and in the interest of protecting our image and our flying site, as well as protecting any club info that shouldn't be public, the simplest thing to do is remove it. But the vote was to just limit it to members only, which I think will accomplish most of the goals and hopefully will satisfy enough voting members that we can keep getting voted into office and retain our lucrative salaries and benefits packages. The exec committee is discussing issues such as what club info needs to be public and whether we should retain a few specific areas for public posting of videos and other things that are highly unlikely to get out of hand.

Dave
Secretary

PS: I may have been joking about one thing above.

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the clarification.

But it seems that the effect of this will be that someone like Urs can post whatever he wants - in some cases posting things that are provably false - and there will be no one to step in and call him on it. That's exactly what would have happened if several of us (who may not be voting members) hadn't spoken up. I don't see how that benefits hang gliding at Fort Funston ... or hang gliding anywhere.

Oh, but I guess your site will be very pleasant to read and everyone will feel good about themselves. Is that the trade-off you're making here?

Bob Kuczewski

P.S. I should also comment that banning people from forums (whether it's hanggliding.org or the Oz Report or HGAA or flyfunston) is not helping to bring the community together. In fact, it's doing just the opposite. It's fracturing the community into little segments and little regions and little cliques who won't talk to each other. And why is this happening? Is it just because some people can't take the heat of public scrutiny? Is that a trade-off worth making? Shouldn't hang gliding clubs be working together to promote more communication rather than less?

Sunshine remains ... the best disinfectant. Please don't pull the shades.

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Dan Brown wrote the body of Article V in regard to Voting Membership and he can give you the details of why it is written the way it is.
I think you will appreciate it!

Hi Steve,

It's probably similar to the reason that the Torrey Hawks bylaws have this provision:

Article III - Membership

Voting members must hold a USHPA rating of H4 or above and have flown a hang glider at the Torrey Pines Gliderport within the previous three years.

We want to ensure that the club is governed by people who care about hang gliding at Torrey Pines (currently an H4 site). This is especially important to us since there is no fee for joining the Torrey Hawks. Our no-cost membership would otherwise make it far too easy for the club to be "taken over" by anyone who doesn't really support hang gliding there.

But that's only a voting membership requirement. We have no such requirement to join the club or to post on the club's forums. All members (voting or not) are welcome to post there. In fact, without that ability, how would our non-voting members be able to express their opinions to help influence the Board or the voting members?

Of course, there are problems with interlopers posting on our forums, and the US Hawks has developed the following policy:

1. We have two levels of normal users - Registered Users and Approved Users.

2. We restrict Registered Users to certain forums where they can post about anything - including topics from other parts of the forum. So anyone who registers can comment on anything - while not disrupting the rest of the forum.

3. We generally promote users to the Approved Users group as soon as we recognize that they're real people with a real interest in hang gliding (not spammers or fakes). This often requires that the forum administrator (me) knows who people are in real life. This isn't strictly enforced, but if someone starts attacking someone else, then they should be willing to let everyone know who they really are. Anonymous pot shots are not acceptable behaviour. But if someone is willing to stand behind their comments with their own good name, then we feel they should have a right to say what they believe.

This system provides freedom of expression for everyone, and it protects the the bulk of the forum from most kinds of abuse. I think something similar might be helpful for your club. That's just a friendly suggestion.

Bob Kuczewski
Club Secretary - Torrey Hawks Hang Gliding Club (USHPA Chapter #270, US Hawks Chapter #1)

Thank you for your opinions, I'm sure the Board will consider all aspects of them.

Flyopause occurs when a pilot talks about flying more than he actually aviates. don't let it happen to you .

You are right, I need to fly more!

Dave wrote that pilots allowed to vote because of the 20 hour voting bylaw are those “people who have an actual stake in the site (they fly Funston) and are taking the time to run the club.” I agree. I wrote the bylaw and that is why I objected when USHPA’s Directors voted to prohibit us from having the bylaw. At that same meeting the Directors voted to impose a gag rule limiting speech because of “serious PR problems” and a bad public image caused by “detrimental” speech. USHPA defined “detrimental” as:
“1. Any correspondence in any public media which is
critical of USHPA’s programs and policies.
2. Any correspondence in any public media which is critical
of other Chapters.
3. Any Club policy which is detrimental or causes harm to
any USHPA program.”

USHPA’s attempt to limit free speech to improve its image and reputation predictably had the opposite effect damaging the image and reputation. The same will happen to Fellow Feathers. If pilots are denied a forum to present their views, they will go to the GGNRA or the Commissioner of Corporations.

Free speech by its nature is critical, detrimental, dangerous, undermining, harmful and creates a bad public image. Those running organizations from governments to hang gliding clubs always want to limit speech to “responsible” speech. The problem is who decides what is responsible. To compare small to large during the Viet Nam era, the Nixon and Johnson administrations attempted to limit speech claiming criticism they deemed not responsible aided the enemy.

Here limiting speech to voting members assumes that voting members are more responsible than non-voting members. Flying 20 hours or more at Funston does not increase intelligence.

All speech has limitations. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Patently offensive comments or comments not related to hang gliding do not belong on the site. Beyond that everything within reason should be permitted. Personal attacks are deplorable but usually do more harm to the person making them than to the intended victim. Steve was not harmed by recent personal attacks on him.

Limiting posting to voting members can be circumvented by voting members posting comments for non-voting members.

Prohibiting non-voting members from posting raises legal issues since their dues help pay for the site. It could jeopardize the voting bylaw and the non-profit corporate status. A valid argument could be made to limit posting to Club members, voting and non-voting, on the theory that they are the ones who pay for it but this is ungenerous and not in the spirit of a free and open internet.

We should be less concerned about public relations and more concerned about what we do at Funston. We should not imitate USHPA. It’s not words but deeds that count. Limiting speech will do more harm than the speech.

Excellent, excellent, excellent comments Dan. You've really been paying attention to the facts.

So much so that I have nothing to add ...
... except a few more excellents: excellent, excellent, excellent!!

So in lieu of me writing a wall of text, please read Dan's post a second time (also reposted on USHawks). Thanks Dan!!

What a crock of shit

I am not a voting member, but I do not care one bit if this forum is only for voting members, I see nothing wrong with that

Problem with technology is that as soon as its in place people have no idea how we ever got by without it

I see no reason a club needs to have a public forum, in fact I think public forums are the last place club business should be discussed

flyin_canuck,

I think you're contradicting yourself ...

You say that you're not a voting member and you don't care "one bit" if non-voting members can't post here.

And yet you take the time to post here with an obviously opinionated perspective that you're hoping will sway others. It appears that you do care "one bit" about whether non-voting members can post ... if that non-voting member is you.

I'll spare you the "rolling eyes" smiley, but please think about the logical inconsistency contained in your own post.

Thanks.

Dan, Bob,
It's not about who can post, it is about who can view the posts.
Got a better way to protect our public image and the business side of the Fellow Feathers?
If so, come to the meeting, present your motion and vote.

Steve Rodrigues wrote:Dan, Bob,
It's about protecting our public image. It's not about who can post, it is about who can view it.
If you disagree come to the meeting and vote. It's a democracy after all.

Steve,

Urs and many members of the USHPA Board thrive on secrecy (actual and/or practical). That's why they won't publish how they vote ... even to their members!!! That's how we ended up with the USHPA gag order, and the HG/PG chapter voting requirements, and a long list of SOP changes that conflict with their member's interests. Please note that I asked Urs 3 simple questions:

Why didn't you second a motion to discuss open voting by the Board at the Spring 2010 meeting?
How did you vote on the "gag order" fiasco last fall?
What is your voting record on all USHPA issues?

Urs has attacked me and others, but he has effectively dodged those three simple questions. Why?

Urs has also made false statements on this forum. If they're not challenged, then they will be assumed to be true by anyone reading them. How do you propose to rectify that if the people he's accusing don't have the ability to defend themselves here on this forum?

But mostly, I think Dan said it very well here:

Dan Brown wrote:Free speech by its nature is critical, detrimental, dangerous, undermining, harmful and creates a bad public image. Those running organizations from governments to hang gliding clubs always want to limit speech to “responsible” speech. The problem is who decides what is responsible.

Free speech is a double-edged sword. But history has shown that suppressing it - for any reason - tends to have worse effects than allowing it. As I said before, free speech provides the feedback needed for stability. If that's visible from the "outside" then that's how visitors can see that you've got a healthy organization.

Finally, if you try to suppress free speech in one location, then you increase the chance that it will surface somewhere else ... maybe somewhere even more visible!! It's far better to have people complaining within your club ... than outside of it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but part of my willingness to support the idea of a club business only forum is that I don't see any strong argument that our club needs to host another public chat board.

There are already multiple public forums that do that, some with even more participants (i.e. audience) than the Fellow Feathers.

Since there are plenty of other viable options for free speech, our club is not imposing any hardship by restricting our little forum to club business for voting members only.

The only drawback I see is that maybe the board will not be as much fun sometimes, but I think that is more than offset by the negative representations of our community. The benefit will be having our club appear more businesslike and more professional in regard to our self and our sport.

Thanks for weighing in with your thoughtful opinion Steve. I really appreciate it.

Unfortunately, those other public forums (I assume you mean ozreport.com and hanggliding.org) are providing skewed information based on the biases of their owners. People reading either of those forums simply don't get all the news. They just get the news that Davis Straub and Jack Axaopoulos (sg) will allow. There is no "free speech" at either of those sites since Davis and Jack have both demonstrated their willingness to modify the history of what's written there. Entire topics on hanggliding.org and the Oz Report have simply "disappeared" when their owners didn't want them. There's no Board of Directors or due process at those sites. There's no guarantee of transparency or right of rebuttal. They are completely controlled by the will of those owners, so they do NOT provide the venue for free speech needed as a "check and balance" on USHPA.

Let me give you an example. One of the biggest "meta problems" I see at USHPA is the lack of any voting record by the Board members. That affects every single thing that USHPA does. That's how the "Chapter gag order SOP" got passed (chapters can lose their status and insurance if any of their board members - or possibly regular members? - are openly "critical" of USHPA). That's how the HG/PG mandate to Chapters got passed (effectively requiring all chapters to be biwingual and to allow voting by all HG and PG members). Name your own favorite complaint about USHPA and you'll find that it was done (or supported) by votes of the Board with no record of who voted for it or who voted against it. This is a huge problem since the regular members are supposed to elect the Board members, but the regular members can't see the voting records of those Board members. It's like flying a hang glider with your eyes closed!! Sure you can control what the glider does through your control inputs, but you can't see the results. You can't see which way Urs votes on the Board, so you have no way of knowing whether or not he should be supported or replaced. We're flying blind.

Now you'd think a simple thing like that would be a "no-brainer" to have fixed. We just need to pass a requirement that all votes by the Board be recorded so our members can see how their Directors are voting. I proposed the "Accountability Amendment" to do that at the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Board meetings. It was rejected by Dave Wills who wouldn't even allow it in the Organization and Bylaws Committee. It was rejected by Lisa Tate who refused to allow it to be brought up in the full Board meeting. No other Director on that Board would "second" my motion. Yet you'll find no record of it in any of the USHPA minutes.

OK, so this is where those "national forums" should shine a light on the problem, right? Wrong. Davis banned me from the Oz Forum because I was asking exactly this question of a competing candidate for Region 3 (Bill Helliwell). I had asked Bill about his position on open voting, and Davis removed my post. So I complained personally to Davis, and he banned me from the forum. There was no due process. There was no review of the facts. Davis simply banned me and that was it. A similar thing happened on hanggliding.org. Jack had taken control of the HGAA because he owned the forum. I made one comment on hanggliding.org using "sgaa" as a play on words, and I was immediately banned. Again, there was no due process. There was no review of the facts. Now whether you believe those bans were justified or not, the fact remains that the proponent of open voting on the USHPA Board (me) has been silenced by the decisions of two unelected people - Davis and Jack - who control those national forums. Have you seen anyone else pushing for open voting by the USHPA Board since I've been gone? No.

So what does that have to do with Funston? Your club is facing an increasingly PG-centric USHPA. I believe Rich Hass is the first PG-only president of that organization. I believe Martin is the first primarily PG Executive Director as well. If you look at the demographics of USHPA, you should be able to see the handwriting on the wall. This new ill-fated requirement to allow PG pilots to be voting members of your club is just the tip of the iceberg. You can bet there's more coming.

Now you can close your forum to national discussions, and you can close your forum to people like me. But all you're really doing is closing your eyes to the changes that will eventually sweep over your club ... and your site. I've seen what's happened at Torrey. I've seen how USHPA backed a PG concession over an HG club. PG is their cash cow. It's the easy money. You don't stand a chance if you think you're going to stop that on your own.

And that brings me to my final point here. I fly both HG and PG. I want to see them both treated fairly. I'm not worried about PG getting fair treatment because I see USHPA moving in that direction. My fear is that hang gliding is threatened because of the demographic shifts in USHPA. If the hang gliding community doesn't begin to assemble a coalition to defend their sport, we're going to see more and more changes in USHPA that are detrimental to hang gliding. My final point is that we need a national organization devoted to protecting and promoting the sport of hang gliding. I tried to do that with the HGAA but it was taken over (and eventually strangled) by special interests. I'm trying a different approach with the US Hawks, and I'm asking your members and your Board to vote to become a Chapter of that new organization. If nothing else, I believe that action will help demonstrate to USHPA that there are alternatives in the marketplace. There is no cost to have your Chapter join the US Hawks and it would not change anything in your club. The US Hawks does not impose its will on its member clubs, and we are dedicated to ensuring that hang gliding endures. I ask one of your Board members or one of your regular members to bring this up as a motion at your next Board meeting and request a recorded vote on the motion. Please publish the results of that vote on this forum so everyone can see it. That's all I'm really asking.

Thanks, and sorry for the long post.
Bob Kuczewski
Founder - US Hawks Hang Gliding Association
858-204-7499 / bobkuczewski@gmail.com

flyin_canuck wrote:Problem with technology is that as soon as its in place people have no idea how we ever got by without it...I see no reason a club needs to have a public forum, in fact I think public forums are the last place club business should be discussed...

Canuck,

You, sir, are one naive little maple leaf, aren't you?

From the beginning of time, Man has relied on public forums and bulletin boards to share their feelings and state their cases to the masses of those willing to sit and read. Before time became that which we know now, we have dragged our knuckles to the keyboard, or chisel and slab of granite, and stated our case. We have challenged each other for accountability long before bulletin boards were referred to "technology" as you state.

Long before bulletin boards such as this one in which I type, Man would chisel his toughts on granite slabs, then hand deliver those slabs to the other Man he was trying to communicate. This could take weeks, but sooner or later the message would be sent.

The first to do so was Zogk, I believe.

Zogk was having issues with the local spear sharpening club and sought change from the evil Regional Directors of the Spear Sharpeners of America. No one would listen, though, and within time, Zogk created his own spear sharpeners club (US Spear Sharpening Hawks). Zogk had a mass of followers in the beginning, but they grew weary of his endless chiseling on slabs of granite. The masses couldn't understand why Zogk wouldn't join them in the cave campfire gathering to share ideas. When challenged face to face, Zogk would just say, "Wah"...the Directors were not impressed with Zogk's method of communication and ultimately kicked him out of the US Spear Sharpening Hawks.

Sitting alone in his cave, undeterred, Zogk continued to chisel his thoughts onto numerous slabs of granite. Often time, Zogk would answer his own rambling chiselings, or cut and paste his chiselings to other pieces of granite and hand deliver those words of wisdom to those willing to listen.

Things have not changed much today, Canuck...we still have a similar method of communication via the modern day "bulletin board", and we still have the Zogk's in the world that are nothing more than entertainment. Almost makes you wonder how we could possibly get by without this fine method of communication, huh?

Hi Chris,

That's a cute story. But I'm a little unclear about the "issues" you said Zogk was having.

Since you've got such a great grasp of history, maybe you could tell everyone what those issues were. Were they trivial issues like the name of the Spear Sharpening Club (soon to be changed to Spear and Slingshot Sharpening Club)? Or were the issues more substantial like Dave Beardslee being banned from his home site ... for life (with no due process). Were they superficial issues like whether to possibly relocate headquarters (most likely a diversion), or were they fundamental issues like the rights of the members to know how their own Directors are voting?

Please tell me Chris, what were those silly issues that Zogk was fighting for?

Thanks in advance,
Bob K.

Zogk has spoken...the tribe will consider his ramblings and decide whether he stay in Man Cave or be moved to another cave with the women and children.

Hi again Chris,

I don't mean to press the question, but I'd like to know if you can summarize what I've been working for. There's been a lot of negative propaganda spread about me, and I'd honestly like to know what you think I've been working to achieve.

This could (don't laugh) become a productive discussion.

Thanks in advance,
Bob Kuczewski

Zogk continues to chisel words on granite...that is OK...the Tribe will continue to review his ramblings during the next scheduled Tribal Meeting.

Zogk, pease wait for the Tribe's response while you tend to the women and children's needs in their cave. The Man Cave needs to be clear for further discussion and spear sharpening.

One of the children has a puppy you can play with that will keep you more than occupied...we'll get back to you...trust me.

Please refer to me as the "Tribal Leader" from here on out if you could be so kind.

This "Chris" you speak of, I do not know, but I assume he is a fool.