agenda for cspa agm

[Goobersnuftda]

But look what we've done. Proposed something that got people talking all be it only to a select few who actually use a computer and web based chat forums. Can you imagine what kind of debate this will spawn at the AGM? I believe the basic premise is sound and I don't' think anyone can question that. It is in the specific wording that people may want to tinker with.

I really don't care who has the final working version, just please install something that works. Everyone should be able to know before hand what motions are being proposed as well at the same time being able to stop someone trying to sneak in an "emergency" motion 3 hours before the AGM when it damn well was nothing near an emergency but rather a sneak under the radar kind of thing would be great.

Some times things don't have to be actually broken for you to make them better. 50 years of running something the same way is a good record but to sneak in the 2/3 voting power to a regional group should have been a warning that silly things can come up with no prior warning at an AGM if there are no policies against it.

...now break off into small groups and discuss among yourselves.....

[skypuppy]

hat about something like:

“Any motion that would result in a change to (1) a BSR, (2) a Technical Recommendation, or (3) the constitution, must be submitted to CSPA X days prior to the AGM, and must be published by CSPA staff on the CSPA website Y days before the AGM.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Changes to the constitution already require notice by the record date. This is essentially what the Descenders motion was a couple of years ago, but was quite vociferously talked down at the agm by various committee members. Like several people here, I can't see why it shouldn't work, but considering the opposition by members at the last agm, I have a hard time seeing how it could pass. I do believe the current motion is unworkable since it states all motions should be known ahead of time, but changes we all have to live with (bsr's, TRec's)? They should be.

I would suggest that 15/10 days is an arbitrary figure, too short, and it should just be in to cspa by the record date, like constitutional changes. That would make things simpler. We could also say that the notices have to go out from cspa to the members within 10 days of the record date, so it's not just sat on until the week before.

Like Chris K said, it makes sense to have a more involved membership, the only way to get involved is to know what will come up.

[skypuppy]

if you could show us at least one motion from the previous fifty years that had been passed and was subsequently branded by the membership as a big mistake that harmed our skydiving. You can’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't know about it harming our skydiving, but it was sort of weird how one year helmets were not needed and then they were and then there was a loophole for D licences. And did anyone actually change their behavior while the rules changed from year to year? That was a long time ago, but I'm sure their are other things (BC, perhaps?).

Passing bad rules that people won't follow is what makes the organization superfluous. And what will get MOT involved when they see it....

[Beatnik]

Burk:

You haven't done anything. If you would look at past AGM's this sort of thing has been mentioned before that is why there is so much information on it. The web based stuff was discussed when I was on the BoD. The debate at the AGM is going to be the exact same as it was before. This is really a dead case. You don't seem to see that.

The wording has to be very specific and very exact and I can almost guarantee you that coming up with something on the fly is not going to happen plus it is not possible. If it was possible to change the wording last minute who knows what kind of evil could be produced because of it. Anyways because of the nature of this type of motion notice would have to be given before the record date at the next AGM to change the wording. Because of the poor wording and the changes it implements, it needs to be turned down and adjusting of the wording isn't possible till next AGM. If you would have done the research before hand into this and understood all that goes on this conversation may have been more to your liking. There are others who are not on this forum that are speaking out against this as well.

In the end this motion is very bad one and should not be implemented into the association. It will cause a lot more harm than good. My vote is still no to it.

[jumpjoe]

Goober’s and Skypuppy’s comments regarding ‘saving’ this motion by amending it into a more acceptable format simply cannot happen. Having said that, it is possible to amend Goober’s motion at the AGM in accordance to Roberts rules with a simple majority vote but only in a very restricted way. Under Roberts rules “no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended” What they mean by “increases” is any amendment must be within the framework and intent of the original motion. For example in Goobers’ motion an amendment could tinker with the number of days mentioned. But Goober’s motion is so unworkable that all the changes and amendments proposed are serious modifications and therefore would not be allowed.

It think after reading “Kris K’s comments on Roberts Rules and his dismissal of our concerns it needs to be said that Roberts Rules do not give the membership special powers over and above those powers defined in CSPA ‘s Constitution. Roberts Rules just spell out for us the universally accepted way of conducting our business. Our Constitution is a ‘dinosaur’ but as long as it remains as it is we must work within its limits. Taking a big business approach to how CSPA carries out its business is inappropriate. Referring to the procedures relating to Special Orders as set out in Roberts Rules as a way around the ‘hamstringing’ aspects of Goober’s motion is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because when you combine our Constitution, which is very specific in its agenda and does not make allowance for Special Orders, with Goober's motion with its very specific banning of all motions that have not been previously advertised, you end up with an unworkable mess. And I assure you that arguing that the presence of our s.18(h)(4) “other” is a reference to, our gives us the power, to turn a last minute serious problem into a special order so it can be dealt with without Goober’s special notice is going to be a real stretch of the powers in our Constitution.

[chris_k]

[quote] after reading “Kris K’s comments on Roberts Rules and his dismissal of our concerns it needs to be said that Roberts Rules do not give the membership special powers over and above those powers defined in CSPA ‘s Constitution. [quote]

Not a dismissal but its not as large of a concern as some are making it seem. The idea is sound.

Its easy to control with the right wording, just getting the wording will take many round tables.

[quote]Taking a big business approach to how CSPA carries out its business is inappropriate.[quote]

I disagree with this. Sure it takes more effort but why would we not want to model the CSPA off an efficient model? (A whole other point of discussion from the above though as it would require an overhaul of the current CSPA constitution)

Again "special order" is only for recent events that come up after the X date deadline has passed. As an example: Transport canada suddenly decides to end parachute operations. Obviously that would need to be addressed asap. If its trully critical the motion would be adopted.

[jumpjoe]

We are having parallel conversations. I am concerned here with CSPA’s existing Constitution once it has been amended by Goober’s motion. That is my only concern. Within that context Goober’s motion is a disaster and how big business runs their meetings and how Roberts rules are used for them is irrelevant.

It would appear that Goober’s motion will fail. Lets hope so.

With respect to your example of Transport Canada and CSPA having to react to it using a ‘Goober amended Constitution’ – yes we probably would proceed as you state – but strictly speaking we would not be proceeding on solid ground based opon the powers of our ‘Goober Constitution’.

Your comments and others regarding amendments to our Constitution and bringing us into the 21st century are all applicable and wonderful stuff for proceeding forward. But that is for tomorrow. Today’s emergency is Goober’s motion because that is all that is on the table at this month’s AGM.

Is anyone curious about any action being taken with respect to last year’s Constitutional change regarding rewriting our Constitution? Does anyone know if there is a group or person working on it? I assumed with the passing of the amendment that something would be forthcoming - but silence. Maybe I misunderstood what was behind the motion.

[Beatnik]

I am very curious about that motion from the AGM last year Joe. But as of last month, when I asked about it. I was told that there was no work that they knew of done about it. Considering who it was that put that motion forward, it would not surprise me that it would be done last minute. But the motion was just to put forward a draft of a new constitution, it had nothing to do about implementing it or adopting it. That is all up in the air. Since it would be constitutional anyways we wouldn't be able to adopt it till next year at the earliest. So I think that one is fairly safe at the moment. But next week could prove otherwise.

I agree with you that this "Goober Motion" is the real concern right now and I am hoping that it will be an easy defeat. Cause like you said, this is today's emergency.

[aphid]

I have never had an issue carrying proxies, nor giving my proxy to somebody else trusted and knowledgeable to my concerns, in any organization or legislative body I was a member of.

Inasmuch as some motions (non-constitutional) will arise from the floor without notice in many legislative, administrative or societal forums; when you authorize somebody to carry your proxy(ies), you authorize them to act, vote, and SPEAK PERSUASIVELY to any motion or debate on your behalf with your best interests in mind. If you are uncomfortable with that do not authorize anybody to carry your proxy, perhaps choose a more informed and appropriate proxy-holder, or simply attend yourself.

John

PS: For what it's worth, I've witnessed a Proxy-Holder split his proxies 5-3 in order to accurately reflect his various constituents desires. And once, I had to split mine 4-1. (Not CSPA, BTW)

Jumpjoe said
But what could we do once we recieve notification as little as 10 days before the AGM? Would we spend big bucks and send out an emergency mass mailing to all the other members urging them to vote this or that way? Or, spend bigger bucks and immediately change our plans with time off work, airfare purchase and accomodation etc and dash off to attend the meeting? No, we would not do any of those things - we would simply send our proxy detailing how we want the proxy carrier to vote on each and every motion. Would the fact that someone was carrying our vote have an affect on the outcome? To some degree obviously - afterall votes decide the question. But having someone carrying your vote does not replace, or is not as effective, as having the opportunity to speak and sway the other voters with your opinion. Motions pass or fail based on the discussion and the persuasion that takes place on the floor of the AGM before the question is called.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For myself, what I would do is research the motion and give my proxy holder certain talking points to be discussed before the vote, in the hope that they can be satisfactorily answered, or that our point of view can be properly presented. Research would include looking at the sources of information to see how reliable they are, something not necessarily possible during the time constrictions of an agm, where it is often -- XXXX (read PIA or FAI or French Parachute Association, or BPA or Airtech, or whatever) says this and we therefore believe we should fall in line, or something like that. Well, why does XXXX say this, what reports are their decisions based on and is there any possibly of a conflict of interest in their findings? What are the alternatives? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives? In recent agms there have been severe time constraints and I believe some worthy subjects have not even made it onto the floor when other discussions take over.

I have even considered whether the agm should be held over 2 days in order to allow meaningful discussion and to ensure everything gets it chance to be discussed. But adding another day would be expensive, both in money and in time, without conflicting with the various committee meetings. I do tend to think that if major changes were announced beforehand there might be better time-management, since more of the topics would already be known and time could be budgeted beforehand.

As far as society and governments in general, I know what Jim is saying, but I don't vote in federal or provincial elections for someone who will make decisions with society's best interests at heart -- I look at how they tell me they'll vote on the things I believe in, and vote for the one who will support what I believe in. I know I'm not the smartest guy in the country, but I do figure I'm smart enough to form opinions on most subjects, not abdicate the decision to someone else. If they are willing to vote with me more than half the time, they'll get my vote before someone who would vote against my beliefs more than half the time. But I still try to get them to change their minds on the other subjects where they disagree with me.