Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]


ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...



                


Thread: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another re ...

Message: [Acro] Re: IAC rules amok?? -- just another real world solution

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: "Virginia M. Jacobson" <virginia at odysseypub.com>

Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 20:52:44 UTC


Message:

Thank You Jeffery

Your points and views are well taken and after reviewing the minutes form the BOD meeting last fall I have a little different out look on the IAC and how the over all process works. I think you have explained it quite well and shed new light in areas I have not seen before. I still believe in the people we have elected and still trust in their opinions and judgment. 

The minutes did state that 2002 was to be a trial year for the new Primary category and it is to be revisited again in 2003. 
I believe we should fly the season, give it a shake and see what happens. Like I stated in an earlier post I believe there is far less danger for beginners entering our sport than there is from the rouge pilots that plague us every year.

Virginia Jacobson
IAC#18076
VP CH-88
National Judge



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  Hi Virginia,

  Your points are well made about the BOD being a dedicated, hard working, 
  VOLUNTARY bunch of folks.  But the BOD is not a democratic organization.  Yes, 
  they are elected, but as the last election ballot clearly showed (and it was 
  very typical of past ballots), there is no real way to know what stances a 
  candidate will take on specific issues.  Directors are under no moral, ethical 
  or other dictate to follow the wishes of their "constituency."  BOD members do 
  have personal agendas; that's one reason why they agree to participate in the 
  thankless process.  Take for example the recent fervor over bonus points in 
  Unlimited.  This was never even put out to the membership for comment.  It was, 
  however, a hot item on the personal agenda of several BOD members.  And it 
  passed without general membership feedback.

  Our current IAC president has some very strong personal feelings about the 
  direction he wants this organization to move towards.  Strong enough that he 
  has committed to make the personal sacrifices required to pursue his agenda.  I 
  don't neccessarily agree with several of his stances, but he is the President 
  and wields significant influence as such.  And there's ultimately little else I 
  can do about it other than voice my opinion to him and whoever else will 
  listen.  Come next election, he will probably run un-opposed.  It's a thankless 
  job.  I don't have the resources to run.  Dollars are the only real vote that 
  we as members have.  As the organization moves further away from the desires of 
  the general membership, fewer people will participate.

  I too would very much like to know how many directors receive direct input from 
  members and how that influences their voting.  My feeling is that they don't 
  receive much feedback and that they vote according to their own agendas.  It's 
  the nature of the beast.  Unless the general membership gets involved with the 
  approval process on specific issues, it will always be that way.  And that's 
  not likely to happen.  The reality is that if I feel strongly enough about an 
  issue, the only way that I can really do something about is get myself elected 
  on the BOD; then I have a voice.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter about 
  this.  I recognize that this is how our organization works, and I still choose 
  to play.  

  Jeffery Poehlmann
  President Ch 107

  > 
  > Like I said I'm glad to hear that people did follow the process. Most people
  > who bitch about something don't.
  > 
  > The question I would like to see an answer to is how many negative comments
  > were received by the other directors and were these
  > comments in the majority or the minority when the topic was brought up at
  > the BOD meeting?
  > 
  > I still would like to think that our BOD acted in accordance with the
  > majority of the feedback they received and not because they or someone on
  > the BOD had a personal agenda. Several of you are working very hard to shake
  > our faith in the integrity of our BOD. If enough evidence is presented that
  > this is indeed the case than perhaps something should be done about it,
  > otherwise I still will believe in the HONESTY and INTEGRITY of  those we
  > elected to the BOD.
  > 
  > Can any of the other regional directors comment on what kind of feedback
  > they had in regards to the then proposed Primary category by the time the
  > BOD meeting took place last fall?
  > 
  > Virginia Jacobson
  > IAC#18076
  > VPCh-88
  > National Judge
  > 
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
  > Yes, we certainly did!!   We had several directors meetings that ended up
  > in the late hours of the night discussing this very topic that resulted in a
  > written
  > response to the proposal.   Our response also included phone calls to both
  > headquarters
  > as well as calls to our regional director Tom Myers.  Several calls were
  > made to our neighboring clubs in California, (one of which Jim Nahom is a
  > member) and they submitted a response as well.   All of the clubs in this
  > area opposed the rule, which is one reason Tom Myers opposed the rule at the
  > BOD meeting.
  > 
  > 
  > Chuck Graves
  > IAC 69, BOD Member
  > 
  > 
  > 



Attachement 1: part2.html


                


© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Retired
Email Guenther Eichhorn