TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #454

  • Wayne Norrie
  • Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Thank you received: 0

ryanw wrote: The bylaws are pretty clear about which parts require the super majority and which don't.

Interestingly the part of the bylaws about membership requirements don't require a super majority. A bylaw change proposal could be submitted that simply changes LSF membership requirements from completing L1 to filling out a form and requesting to join.

Ryan


And that modification/change of the bylaws would not require the super majority. It can be done by a simply majority of all members L1 through L5 and a 2/3 majority vote of the Exec Board.

The overwhelming majority of the bylaws fall into this category.

Wayne
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #455

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

ryanw wrote: The bylaws are pretty clear about which parts require the super majority and which don't.

Interestingly the part of the bylaws about membership requirements don't require a super majority. A bylaw change proposal could be submitted that simply changes LSF membership requirements from completing L1 to filling out a form and requesting to join.

Ryan


The bylaws and SAP are intertwined so it's hard to change one without affecting other especially when it deals with tasks resulting in membership privileges, I don't think it can be done. I haven't read anything yet in the word salad that is plausible but the loudest voice usually wins.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #456

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

tMcCann wrote: The bylaws and SAP are intertwined so it's hard to change one without affecting other especially when it deals with tasks resulting in membership privileges


What privileges are you referring to? The bylaws are quite clear on what needs to be changed via super majority. Only XII section 1 and 2 (voting requirements for changing SAP and voting requirements for changing bylaws) and section XVI (the SAP itself) require supermajority.



Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #457

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

jwjenks wrote: Just wondering what the limiting language is that prevents ALES.
Is it only:
"Towing by means of aircraft or other airborne devices is expressly forbidden."


That is one of them. That would prevent things like aero tow, 049 motor pods, electric sailplanes, rocket launched sailplanes, and piggy back launch from being used in the SAP.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #458

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0
And gentlemen, please let us remember...we are not talking about amending the SAP in any way shape or form, so any discussions about that are not necessary. We are talking about adopting a new ESAP and new way of joining the LSF (via the new ESAP).
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #459

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

helletp wrote: And gentlemen, please let us remember...we are not talking about amending the SAP in any way shape or form, so any discussions about that are not necessary. We are talking about adopting a new ESAP and new way of joining the LSF (via the new ESAP).


Membership, member number and insignia are all authorized in the SAP so anything that affects those requires the 2/3rds super requirement
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #460

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

tMcCann wrote: Membership, member number and insignia are all authorized in the SAP so anything that affects those requires the 2/3rds super requirement


Membership, membership number, and the display of the LSF insignia is handled in Article 6. Changes to article 6 doesn't require a super majority. Article 6 has been changed in the past without a super majority.

Ryan
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #461

  • Tim McCann
  • Offline
  • Posts: 47
  • Thank you received: 0

ryanw wrote:

tMcCann wrote: Membership, member number and insignia are all authorized in the SAP so anything that affects those requires the 2/3rds super requirement


Membership, membership number, and the display of the LSF insignia is handled in Article 6. Changes to article 6 doesn't require a super majority. Article 6 has been changed in the past without a super majority.

Ryan

The SAP. 2/3rds "super requirement" to change this.

Section 2-Level I (Primary)
The performance tasks pursuant to Level I are presented in the Soaring Accomplishments Program, Requirements Summary, Section12. Upon completion and documentation of the Level I tasks, the Aspirant must submit the performance documentation voucher to the LSF Executive Board for membership enrollment. After acceptance of the voucher, the LSF Executive Board will award the Member his LSF number and remit a Level II performance documentation voucher. The Member may then display a red I centered immediately below a Soaring Accomplishments Program insignia, and his LSF number.
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #462

  • Larry Jolly
  • Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Thank you received: 0
Ryan,
The Lawyer I showed the bylaws to is of the opinion that Tim's view has merit.. I have already mentioned in a previous post that just adding an ESAP has some complications. As for changes to article 6 even though there is precedence, it is quite clear that membership is dependant on demonstration of Soaring skills defined by the SAP. So it is possible that legal action could indeed correct any injury to the bylaws inflicted by misguided leadership... LJ
The topic has been locked.

ESAP Proposal 4 years 2 weeks ago #463

  • Preston Heller
  • Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • Thank you received: 0
I think the procedure for amending the By-laws is fairly well defined, including what it would take to amend the SAP. They are different and instituting change in the requirement to become a member does not fall under the super majority caveat.

Why we need to even bring up lawyers and legal actions at this point (or any point) is quite troubling to me. In fact it would seem to indicate some bad faith regarding the democratic processes outlined in our by-laws. In any case I have never been fond of thinly veiled wolf tickets and pay them very little attention as they are usually a sign of weakness. But just to be clear, it is easy enough to find a lawyer with a differing point of view. I truly hope this isn't going to come down to something as noxious as which side has the deepest pockets?

Preston
The topic has been locked.
Time to create page: 0.304 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum