TOPIC: ESAP Proposal

tMcCann wrote:

waynen wrote:

tMcCann wrote: The amendment is contra to the bylaws so even if the vote is compliant the underlying amendment is vulnerable to annulment which means all that postage and effort could be a waste.

Most learned LSF scholars that I know have said all along this kind of change is impossible, I think they are correct. As Don says, this is "THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE" in LSF history, expect scrutiny.

Who is gong to annul it? It is not as though the LSF is regulated by some government agency, it is basically a club. Are you and Larry going to go out and hire lawyers and come after LSF on what amounts to nothing more than a club decision? Seriously.

Wayne

A subsequent executive board could simply set it aside and roll back to last valid set of bylaws or it could be by order of a civil court (see Larry's post 462), nobody want's that, certainly not me, but there will never be an "asterisk of diminished achievement" next to my number. However, out of 8200ish members, someone will feel damaged and that vulnerability will be there.
Tim McCann
Level V 2725 no asterisk
"asterisk of diminished achievement" is catchy, I claim copyright :-)

Tim, I believe that Larry's post was referring to amending the original SAP, which this proposal does not do. But thank you for commenting.

I also hate to bring this up, but I think the 8200ish number is definitely high given when we started handing out numbers. That estimate does not take into account our dearly departed members, which would (I'm guessing) bring that number to well under 8,000.

*Preston* (asterisk proud)

Guys when all this started I turned on the notification option and have been faithfully reading posts in real time. It's Christmas Eve. My grandson Dillon (4) and I are playing with my recently acquired simulator and frankly, my cell phone beeping is getting annoying. I promise to read everything later...I swear! But for now......

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Best Wishes, Peace on Earth, Goodwill,............etc. GG

Preston Heller wrote: Sorry, Wayne, but no one has hired anyone to do anything about anything. He said he "talked" to his sister to get her opinion. Is anyone really ready to throw money at this? I don't think so. But.... I'm guessing both sides have some deep pockets in their lineups. hahahaha Now let's all take a deep breath, count to ten, and let it out slowly.

Preston

That was basically my point. I'm not sure lawyers can get involved as there is no law being broken nor is anyone's civil rights being violated. I don't believe the process of changing the LSF bylaws is bound by any state statue. Additionally, there is no annulment process built into the existing bylaws so how could a future board undo it except by a vote of the membership. I'm not going t worry about it.

Wayne

waynen wrote:

Preston Heller wrote: Sorry, Wayne, but no one has hired anyone to do anything about anything. He said he "talked" to his sister to get her opinion. Is anyone really ready to throw money at this? I don't think so. But.... I'm guessing both sides have some deep pockets in their lineups. hahahaha Now let's all take a deep breath, count to ten, and let it out slowly.

Preston

That was basically my point. I'm not sure lawyers can get involved as there is no law being broken nor is anyone's civil rights being violated. I don't believe the process of changing the LSF bylaws is bound by any state statue. Additionally, there is no annulment process built into the existing bylaws so how could a future board undo it except by a vote of the membership. I'm not going t worry about it.

Wayne

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

*Preston* (asterrisk proud)

I'll start by observing that I detest legal tangles and lawyers.

I spent a lifetime working with agreements of all kinds and the most important lesson I learned from all of that was to act as if every provision of every agreement is legally significant and important and you will be able to avoid most legal entanglements. Read every provision plainly and abide by every provision as if your life and honor depended on it.

However brilliant the original SAP is, the original bylaws are horrible. They lack many important definitions. And they are drafted in a way -- especially with regard to amendment -- which openly invites "misunderstandings." None of this makes much difference as long as everybody is headed in the same direction. That does not appear to be the case right now.

My advice to the LSF leadership is to NOT get cute and parse the words to accommodate a particular current objective. The original bylaws spell out in plain language the procedures for notification and for voting. It may well be that over time (good times I would note) individuals CHOSE to interpret those writings in a particular way. In the end, those interpretations don't mean squat. The plain language of the bylaws and the demonstration that current interpretations were arrived at consistent with the bylaws' original plain language are what is necessary now. Unless it can be demonstrated that the requirement for members to register an internet compatible ID with the LSF to be considered "active" and to vote was arrived at through the due process defined in the original bylaws, there is no basis for validating an election for which that is a requirement.

Over 8000 individuals invested countless hours in pursuit of membership in the LSF with an understanding that their rights were defined by the organization's bylaws. It may well be that, except for those who "don't have a life", those rights aren't worth much. Fair enough. But then that begs the question of "why bother at all."

It boils down to this, nothing in the bylaws OR ITS DELEGATED authority authorizes anyone to require that members belong to the internet or have an email address. And if that requirement results in the organization abrogating its responsibility to allow members reasonable access to the ballot box, it is not consistent with the bylaws. And if the number of members who receive ballots is adversely effected by the lack of access no election conducted under the requirement that members register their email addresses can be considered valid.

The notification and voting requirements of our bylaws are cumbersome at best, unreasonable at worst. But they are not the product of snarky members who may disagree with a particular proposal. They are the product of an organization trying to operate under a poorly written set of bylaws.

Whether any of us favor or oppose the current proposal, I think that we all should expect that we will follow our own rules -- or change them. Ignoring them should not be an option.

Happy Landings,

Don

Wayne,

The LSF is incorporated in the State of Delaware.

The bylaws constitute an agreement between the organization and its members.

That agreement confers on its members certain rights, not the least of which are the right to be informed of the organization's activities and the right to vote. While I would be the last to suggest what other remedies may exist, any member (or the Organization for that matter) is free to seek judicial relief to force the organization (or the member) to perform in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

I am not in any way an advocate of this. But organizations can almost always be compelled to perform in accordance with their agreements whether or not laws have been broken, civil rights abridged or monetary damages incurred.

The simplest way to avoid problems with any agreement is to perform in accordance with its plain language.

Happy Landings,

Don

I must in good conscious vote no on this proposal for the following reasons:
1. I cannot support a proposal that doesn't include a new numbering system in the ESAP.
2. Nor one that does not designate your level of achievement between the SAP and the ESAP as Levels I-V SAP and Levels I-V ESAP.

It is an insult to those of us who offered our thoughts on this proposal to have them totally ignored and with no changes between the original proposal and the final proposal. So much for a process seeking comments and ideas. Apparently our voices meant nothing to the Executive Committee who it does appear had their minds made up before this so-called process began.

A separate ESAP could have been a good idea, but to make no distinction between the levels achieved in the original SAP and the ESAP is also an insult to the original SAP achievers. If you blindly think there is a distinction closely read Section 7. Section 7 is about aspirants who have not yet reached a level. The second sentence being added refers to after an aspirant has achieved a level and doesn't even belong in this section. It clearly eliminates any requirement for an individual to designate their achievement as an SAP level or an ESAP level.

The Board has to be kidding! Why would anyone who already is in the SAP program with a level achieved even bother going to the so-called ESAP? I'm already a Level III so if I now achieve Level I in the ESAP, what designator do I use -- LSF III or LSF I? Talk about confusion and this eliminates any desire to even try to work on the ESAP.

I implore the Executive Committee to seriously rethink even putting this proposal out for vote.

I have been hesitant to air my views on this matter as I am relatively new to the LSF and rc soaring. Furthermore, since the debate has stirred quite some emotions, I wish to tread lightly on all your sensibilities. So please bear with me whilst I share my thoughts.

Most of the views presented here, in finding a path to encompass self launched sailplanes within the LSF are similar in scope.

However, there are some recurring concerns which do need some address, many of which may be accommodated without too much difficulty. But there are possibly two which might not easily be dealt with.

Commencing with the two latter issues;
i) The concern that, the scope of the LSF was never intended to allow self launched sailplanes, as it is expressly forbidden in the SAP.
ii) Secondly, that to alter the by laws, is difficult due to the requirements stipulated in the bylaws. Mainly the inability to contact most of the membership, if required, to alter a SAP.

The other, possibly more manageable issues are;
iii) The lack of clearly different identification, from current SAP achievers, for members who attain a level of SAP with self launched sailplanes.
iv) The need to keep a separate roster, and numbering, for those participating in a SAP with sls.
v) A stipulation which will prevent, for want of a better word, cross contamination of the achievers of the two different SAPs. Whilst clearly identifying that they are two separate paths, both under the auspices of the LSF, if a member wishes to head down another path using the SAP for sls, then this may be allowed but said member must commence at L1 for that SAP.

As far I understand these are the main hiccups.
Not wishing to trivialise the above, but points iii to v are reasonably manageable, are they not?
Would it place too many demands on the LSF to manage a separate list/roster, call it what you wish? Cannot it be made mandatory that achievements made with eSAP, will be clearly marked as such, be it in a decal on an aircraft or a list? eL2, EL2, L2e, or even L2E? Can point v, especially, in some form be readily, clearly and easily identifiable in the proposed bylaws?

The above might certainly ameliorate some concerns.

Attending to point ii is some what more fraught, and may be of a more personal nature. Not knowing who the Executive board are, I must trust the members who elected them, of being honest and genuine. For the life of me, I cannot see what they may have to gain by short wiring any correct process to formally change the by laws, other than time constraints and added duties. This is a hobby, for crying out loud. Yes, I can see someone bodging a repair job on a wing and know a few lazy modellers myself. But if it takes some time to do it right, then it takes some time to do it right. So in all fairness, is it possible for the board to comply, within reason, with the by laws? This will mean much to members of the LSF and will show both integrity and honesty.

As to the final point.
I can relate a long story, but this has been long enough and have to finish the spoiler install on a Paragon wing I'm building for a friend. So I always hoped to join the LSF and learn how to achieve the tasks, however I never expected to go from aspirant to knocking on L4 in some 13 months. I first flew an ebay special, $45, repaired HLG in 2011, it ended up with a small brushless, the second week I had it. Never saw little AC brushless motors before then. That summer it caught thermal after thermal, until one day, because I lost sight of it too many times, put it into a dive brought it down too fast. For the first time ever I lost an aircraft for over speeding. If it wasn't for that little motorised HLG, I might have never ended up here sharing these thoughts.
The SAP is in effect its own little world and as many V's have claimed it slowly but surely makes one a better pilot of rc sailplanes. In its own world it is perfect. For the time it was penned, it was absolute. Personally, I think it still is.

But as we all change, whether we like it or not, no one could have foreseen the advent of self launching sailplanes, just like no one could have seen the coming of small portable winches for launching sailplanes instead of tows. The authors of the by laws included methods of amendments for the unforeseeable future and the changes it will, by default, bring.

Most interestingly of all is that there are only two articles in the by laws actually relevant to our hobby, IV and XII. The latter is the SAP and the former is the Purpose. The Purpose is a short article, technical as well but it perfectly sums up why I willingly spend time traipsing around with a sailplane in the car, meeting up with like minded, friendly folk and try to out fly each other. To quote the second and final paragraph of Article IV, "The secondary purpose of the LSF is to foster and support all phases of sporting and competitive activity for R/C model sailplanes; to encourage personal and collective advancement in knowledge of aerodynamics and related arts and sciences; and to promote the general interest in soaring flight.".

So if self launched sailplanes are not at least one phase of sporting activity for model sailplanes and that they will not encourage personal and collective advancement in knowledge of aerodynamics and related arts and sciences, then I shouldn't have got this far, learnt so much and made such good friends. However if they are relevant, then an appropriate SAP should be established, and with the suggestions the members brought forward, highlighted above it would be an asset to the LSF and its stated purpose.

Thanks for your patience and if I did tread on anyone's toes, sincere apologies. But consider yourself luck that it only happened on paper.

All the best for 2014,
Cheers, Al

Right on, Al. I agree with you 100%. This is what some of us have been trying to say for the last year and a half. Thanks.