TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #302

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: While I am in favor of a separate ESAP, I have now concluded the suggested action of establishing a separate ESAP as a method of joining the LSF is against the bylaws of the LSF.
I reread the bylaws several times last night and have concluded that the Bylaws are specific. A person becomes and Apirint
by requesting an SAP application.
After he completes level one of the SAP, and it is accepted, he then becomes a member of the LSF and is given his number.
The wording is very clear and concise.. The only method of joining the LSF is to complete Level one of THE SAP.
Because it does not say A SAP then it is not open for interpretation. The proposed action is not consistant with the LSF Bylaws.
The meanig is clear the only method of becoming a member of the LSF is via the established SAP.
Now that I understand the proposal and have studied the bylaws, it is obvious to me that what the Board is proposing can only be accomplished by a Bylaws change as established in the bylaws. Thats right the same issue as allowing powered aircraft be used in the SAP.
The action we are discussing is not a viable means of joining the LSF..
I am now going to request that Jim Deck withdraw this proposal as it is in direct conflict with the LSF Bylaws.
While I am not a Lawyer..my daughter is, and her specialty is contract law.. I will have her review our Bylaws and ask her for her opinion. However from what I have read since the wording is clear that entry to the organiztion is via completion of THE SAP and no other options are suggestion then it is a closed issue. For this to be a legal action the founders would have had to establish other equivalent SAPS or other actions warranting membership in the LSF...
Larry Jolly


Good point Larry. Good catch.

So bringing in an eSAP program would be a two step process. First you need to amend the bylaws, then you create the eSAP.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #303

  • Curtis Suter
  • Offline
  • Posts: 67
  • Thank you received: 0
Larry,

Okay, if that's the case then why can't the same folks who volunteer their time to manage the LSF just manage a new program called eLSF with a SAP? In other words, instead of making a parallel SAP make a parallel LSF. Then the folks who manage the LSF would have to manage the eLSF and issue a different set of numbers.

Sounds simple on the outside but may not be so on the inside.

I guess it makes me wonder why the founders of the LSF even had the SAP terminology then. Makes ya think....

Curtis
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #304

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0

Curtis Suter wrote: Larry,

Okay, if that's the case then why can't the same folks who volunteer their time to manage the LSF just manage a new program called eLSF with a SAP? In other words, instead of making a parallel SAP make a parallel LSF. Then the folks who manage the LSF would have to manage the eLSF and issue a different set of numbers.

Sounds simple on the outside but may not be so on the inside.

I guess it makes me wonder why the founders of the LSF even had the SAP terminology then. Makes ya think....

Curtis


I think it is because in the beginning the LSF was established to administer the SAP. It is all covered here:
www.silentflight.org/images/documents/lsfstory.pdf

The role has grown beyond that. The by-laws should be amended to reflect that expanded role. I can't vote on that, just my opinion.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #305

  • Wayne Norrie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Thank you received: 0
Larry, have a look at Article XII of the bylaws. Changing the bylaws, with the exception of changing Article XII or Article XVI, is a fairly simple process. Implementing a new eSAP does not require amending either of these Articles so it shouldn't be an issue.

ARTICLE XII -AMENDMENTS Section 1 – These Bylaws, and any supplements or attachments, may be altered, amended, deleted or replaced by the affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the Executive Board and subsequent concurrence of a simple majority of the votes cast by active members, except the super requirements contained in Section 2.

Wayne
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #306

  • Ryan Woebkenberg
  • Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Thank you received: 0

eAnderson wrote: I can't vote on that, just my opinion.


If you are posting in this forum you can vote on that.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #307

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Curtis,
I am conflicted on this issue..I am against changing the SAP for reasons I have stated previously. I have no problem with an ESAP and even planned to participate in any program established. I now see that the program we have been debating is complicated by the fact that it will require a 2 part Bylaws change.It is obvious to me that we must change the wording THE SAP to AN SAP step one..
We must then eastblish alternate SAP's for instance the ESAP, or RCgroupsSAP for those that type but don't fly... or others..But the deal is that this is not an easy one step fix..As devised the LSF was pretty specific and not easily retrofitted.. LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #308

  • Ed Anderson
  • Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • Thank you received: 0
Oh, I thought only the level IV and V could vote on by-law changes.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #309

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0

LarryJolly wrote: While I am in favor of a separate ESAP, I have now concluded the suggested action of establishing a separate ESAP as a method of joining the LSF is against the bylaws of the LSF.
I reread the bylaws several times last night and have concluded that the Bylaws are specific. A person becomes and Apirint
by requesting an SAP application.
After he completes level one of the SAP, and it is accepted, he then becomes a member of the LSF and is given his number.
The wording is very clear and concise.. The only method of joining the LSF is to complete Level one of THE SAP.
Because it does not say A SAP then it is not open for interpretation. The proposed action is not consistant with the LSF Bylaws.
The meanig is clear the only method of becoming a member of the LSF is via the established SAP.
Now that I understand the proposal and have studied the bylaws, it is obvious to me that what the Board is proposing can only be accomplished by a Bylaws change as established in the bylaws. Thats right the same issue as allowing powered aircraft be used in the SAP.
The action we are discussing is not a viable means of joining the LSF..
I am now going to request that Jim Deck withdraw this proposal as it is in direct conflict with the LSF Bylaws.
While I am not a Lawyer..my daughter is, and her specialty is contract law.. I will have her review our Bylaws and ask her for her opinion. However from what I have read since the wording is clear that entry to the organiztion is via completion of THE SAP and no other options are suggestion then it is a closed issue. For this to be a legal action the founders would have had to establish other equivalent SAPS or other actions warranting membership in the LSF...
Larry Jolly


Larry is correct, at least in the sense that these are the words of the by-laws, however, it may come down to an interpretation of the word "THE". Larry's reading of this is a very narrow and constricting one. Not that it couldn't be decided that way, ultimately. However, let us look at the following scenario. An eSAP is adopted in the normal and prescribed manner as already explained. So then there are two SAP, one applying to non-motor sailplanes and one to e-sailplanes. If an (e)SAP is adopted the two would be separate but equal in the eyes of the LSF regarding membership, except for method of launch and any other tasks that might be different. It is then perfectly plausible to define the word "THE", when referencing an SAP, to take it to mean the particular SAP that one would be involved in, since there would be two. This would not take an act of congress, rather a consensus that that, in fact, was a reasonable, common sense way of interpreting the by-law - without having to go through the much more difficult and cumbersome change of the by-law. Anyway, that's my interpretation.

Preston
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #310

  • Ryan Woebkenberg
  • Offline
  • Posts: 129
  • Thank you received: 0

eAnderson wrote: Oh, I thought only the level IV and V could vote on by-law changes.


Every LSF member gets a vote if they so choose.

To change the bylaws (except the SAP or the part of the bylaws that describes voting on changing the SAP) simply requires a majority vote from LSF members that choose to vote and a 2/3 vote of the board. Changes to the SAP require the same thing plus they require a 2/3 in favor vote from all living L4s and L5s.



Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 1 month ago #311

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Preston,
Good argument but while I am reading a more narrowly worded intent, I propose that my reading is more inline with the founders thinking. I use as my argument that the founders created the need for a Super Majority clause to preserve the SAP as established. It is my conjecture that they intended this to be the method of entry to the LSF and that the foundation of the LSF is THE SAP... hence one could argue that the SAP is the LSF....LJ
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.307 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum