I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think there
should be at least one board spot for the LEAST
qualified member. The youngest licensee,
the guy who just got his Silver Badge, the newest
member, the newest CFI, etc. should be given
a seat on the youth committee, the retrieve committee,
the membership committee, the flight committee, etc.
Sort of a "reverse seniority." I've seen this work
particularly well in helping introduce new
blood, but in a small enough dose to not be disruptive.
It is tougher for younger members to attend:
being a grandparent is sometimes easier than being a parent,
being a retiree is sometimes easier than starting a
fledgling career, refinancing a house is sometimes
easier than buying one.
Based on this, maybe the board meeting Tuesday at
2pm isn't such a great idea? How about the Catalyst
nightclub at 7pm right before the band starts? :P
In article ,
Ray Lovinggood wrote:
Bill,
I like and understand your concept, but will add my
two-cent's.
We do have members on our club's Board who don't fly
much if at all, but contribute mightily to the club's
wellfare.
I think our club has also recruited at least one of
the younger (age and low flying time) members to run
for Board Member. We want to hear 'their' voice too,
not just the voices from the crusty old-timers.
What IS amazing (probably not really) is that on club
meetings, held once every two months, the same crowd
shows up and not the younger group. It would be interesting
to talk to ALL members about opportunities to fly cross-country,
attend contests or fun-fly's with a club ship, or safety
issues, etc. with more than the same old choir, but
folks don't seem to show for the meetings.
Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d 'W8'
At 19:36 14 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:
I have had experiences very similar to Uli' and Mat's
and I know of many
others. The following comments apply only to USA glider
clubs since I am
not familiar with clubs outside the US but I have the
impression that non-US
clubs have far better governance.
The pattern I have noticed is that soaring clubs are
not infrequently 'taken
over' by non-aviators or, at least, pilots without
any current significant
achievements. Lacking these accomplishments, their
attempts at club
management are, to say the least, counterproductive.
At worst, they drive
away new members and glider pilots who could make a
significant contribution
to the organization if allowed to do so. This starts
a downward spiral
where bad pilots drive away good ones and attract the
bad ones.
There is a group of people who see their mission as
simply running things.
They see no need to be actually involved with soaring
beyond one or two
flights a year wherein they scare themselves silly.
This flight 'checks the
box' and provides them with a topic for discussion
over beers at a local
dive for the subsequent 12 months.
With the view that the best clubs are governed by active
XC glider pilots
with advanced ratings, badges and contest standings,
I propose that any new
clubs still writing their bylaws and those in a position
to re-write theirs
consider setting minimum competency requirements for
club officers and board
members.
For example:
1. Keep the dead wood cleared by requiring that every
officer and board
member will have flown every glider as in the club
fleet solo within the
preceding 12 months. Failure to do so will be considered
a letter of
resignation. (This, at least, proves they CAN fly.
It also requires that
an instructor certify them competent in the club fleet.)
2. In a shift from a pure democracy to a semi-meritocracy,
handicap
candidates for club office with reference to their
achievements as pilots.
For example an instructor with a Diamond badge and
current contest ranking
would outrank a student pilot. This instructor would
have his vote total
multiplied by a factor of say, 2. Appropriate multipliers
for lesser
achievements would also apply.
When all positions of power are filled with accomplished,
competent people,
bureaucratic obstacles to cross country, advanced training,
winch launch
etc.. are likely to vanish.
I would further propose that any club without a clear
pro-growth mission
statement and evidence of performance in the form of
actual new members be
denied the annual SSA dues rebate and suffer any other
sanctions as are
possible such as ineligibility for SSA insurance discounts.
Bill Daniels
'Marian Aldenhövel' wrote in message
...
Hi,
unfortunately the board members have decided to eject
me from the
club if I partipate any more in this discussion online.
My suggestion would be a different club. If at all
possible.
Ciao, MM
--
Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn.
Fon +49 228 624013, Fax +49 228 624031.
http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de
'FOUR MORE BEERS!'
--
------------+
Mark J. Boyd