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