I have been told numerous times that it is OUR BPA.  That we run it.
That if we want something to happen then we should do something about
it.

So we did.  We voted that German skydivers should be allowed to jump in
the UK on their insurance.

So why is it not happening.  Apparently the BPA Council have decided to
have a 'consultation period' of about a year.  Was that the motion on
the ballot paper?  NO.

Why have the membership not got what they voted for?

Apparently there may be additional costs with implementing the new
changes.
Why were we not told at the AGM?  The motion was placed at least 40
days before the AGM.  Did anyone read the insurance contract -
including the person who signed it?

Does the membership run the BPA?

Maybe we could have someone from the BPA give a statement here?

> Does the membership run the BPA?

NO

In article ,
prisoner_nosix@yahoo.com writes
>I have been told numerous times that it is OUR BPA.  That we run it.
>That if we want something to happen then we should do something about
>it.
>
>So we did.  We voted that German skydivers should be allowed to jump in
>the UK on their insurance.
>
>So why is it not happening.  Apparently the BPA Council have decided to
>have a 'consultation period' of about a year.  Was that the motion on
>the ballot paper?  NO.
>
>Why have the membership not got what they voted for?
>
>Apparently there may be additional costs with implementing the new
>changes.
>Why were we not told at the AGM?  The motion was placed at least 40
>days before the AGM.  Did anyone read the insurance contract -
>including the person who signed it?
>
>Does the membership run the BPA?
>

This is a very complex issue but the short answer is that you, the BPA,
can't afford it. There was a Drop Zone Operators meeting this week at
the BPA to discuss the issue so I'm sure that your DZO will be able to
explain it to you in detail, if he/she was there (if not, why not?). The
membership voted at the AGM when we were not in possession of all the
facts. However, that applies to most votes, especially General
Elections!

I don't have time to get in to it right now but basically, the increased
premiums would be in the region of £100K which equates to around £20 for
each full BPA member.

I'd be more impressed if you put your name to your post.

Colin Fitzmaurice                       http://www.theparachutecentre.com
The Parachute Centre
Tilstock Airfield
Whitchurch
Shropshire SY13 2HA
UK

+44 1948 841111

So what was the point of the vote? and why weren't the memebership informed 
prior to voting.

For me it is not a question of the vote itself but the lack of information 
and the general misleading of the members.

Dave

"Colin Fitzmaurice"  wrote in message 
news:QPz+IKAnSEAEFwpH@tilstock.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
> prisoner_nosix@yahoo.com writes
>>I have been told numerous times that it is OUR BPA.  That we run it.
>>That if we want something to happen then we should do something about
>>it.
>>
>>So we did.  We voted that German skydivers should be allowed to jump in
>>the UK on their insurance.
>>
>>So why is it not happening.  Apparently the BPA Council have decided to
>>have a 'consultation period' of about a year.  Was that the motion on
>>the ballot paper?  NO.
>>
>>Why have the membership not got what they voted for?
>>
>>Apparently there may be additional costs with implementing the new
>>changes.
>>Why were we not told at the AGM?  The motion was placed at least 40
>>days before the AGM.  Did anyone read the insurance contract -
>>including the person who signed it?
>>
>>Does the membership run the BPA?
>>
>
> This is a very complex issue but the short answer is that you, the BPA,
> can't afford it. There was a Drop Zone Operators meeting this week at
> the BPA to discuss the issue so I'm sure that your DZO will be able to
> explain it to you in detail, if he/she was there (if not, why not?). The
> membership voted at the AGM when we were not in possession of all the
> facts. However, that applies to most votes, especially General
> Elections!
>
> I don't have time to get in to it right now but basically, the increased
> premiums would be in the region of £100K which equates to around £20 for
> each full BPA member.
>
> I'd be more impressed if you put your name to your post.
>
> Colin Fitzmaurice                       http://www.theparachutecentre.com
> The Parachute Centre
> Tilstock Airfield
> Whitchurch
> Shropshire SY13 2HA
> UK
>
> +44 1948 841111

I might be wrong but wasn't the 'vote' a hand count at the time, of the 
people who were in the main  room of the AGM members or not ?
Is that an accurate 'vote' there is a large number of members who don't go 
to the AGM.

"FFFlailer"  wrote in message 
news:PfYLf.70389$0N1.7857@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> So what was the point of the vote? and why weren't the memebership 
> informed prior to voting.
>
> For me it is not a question of the vote itself but the lack of information 
> and the general misleading of the members.
>
> Dave
>
> "Colin Fitzmaurice"  wrote in message 
> news:QPz+IKAnSEAEFwpH@tilstock.demon.co.uk...
>> In article ,
>> prisoner_nosix@yahoo.com writes
>>>I have been told numerous times that it is OUR BPA.  That we run it.
>>>That if we want something to happen then we should do something about
>>>it.
>>>
>>>So we did.  We voted that German skydivers should be allowed to jump in
>>>the UK on their insurance.
>>>
>>>So why is it not happening.  Apparently the BPA Council have decided to
>>>have a 'consultation period' of about a year.  Was that the motion on
>>>the ballot paper?  NO.
>>>
>>>Why have the membership not got what they voted for?
>>>
>>>Apparently there may be additional costs with implementing the new
>>>changes.
>>>Why were we not told at the AGM?  The motion was placed at least 40
>>>days before the AGM.  Did anyone read the insurance contract -
>>>including the person who signed it?
>>>
>>>Does the membership run the BPA?
>>>
>>
>> This is a very complex issue but the short answer is that you, the BPA,
>> can't afford it. There was a Drop Zone Operators meeting this week at
>> the BPA to discuss the issue so I'm sure that your DZO will be able to
>> explain it to you in detail, if he/she was there (if not, why not?). The
>> membership voted at the AGM when we were not in possession of all the
>> facts. However, that applies to most votes, especially General
>> Elections!
>>
>> I don't have time to get in to it right now but basically, the increased
>> premiums would be in the region of £100K which equates to around £20 for
>> each full BPA member.
>>
>> I'd be more impressed if you put your name to your post.
>>
>> Colin Fitzmaurice                       http://www.theparachutecentre.com
>> The Parachute Centre
>> Tilstock Airfield
>> Whitchurch
>> Shropshire SY13 2HA
>> UK
>>
>> +44 1948 841111
>
>

eerr there is a larger number of people who don't vote in the general 
election, that does not make the vote any less valid.

Any organisation (the people that run it), will do what 'they' want 
regardless of what they are told to by the membership.
And most organisations ask the question, who is the organisation, the 
full-time staff/members/council, this is an age old conflict.

It is 'OUR' organisation until 'they' don't agree with us, or is too 
difficult to implement a policy.

Gary




"Bryan" <heddwynnNO SPAM@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dtpkat$if0$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>I might be wrong but wasn't the 'vote' a hand count at the time, of the 
>people who were in the main  room of the AGM members or not ?
> Is that an accurate 'vote' there is a large number of members who don't go 
> to the AGM.
>
> "FFFlailer"  wrote in message 
> news:PfYLf.70389$0N1.7857@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> So what was the point of the vote? and why weren't the memebership 
>> informed prior to voting.
>>
>> For me it is not a question of the vote itself but the lack of 
>> information and the general misleading of the members.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> "Colin Fitzmaurice"  wrote in message 
>> news:QPz+IKAnSEAEFwpH@tilstock.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article ,
>>> prisoner_nosix@yahoo.com writes
>>>>I have been told numerous times that it is OUR BPA.  That we run it.
>>>>That if we want something to happen then we should do something about
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>So we did.  We voted that German skydivers should be allowed to jump in
>>>>the UK on their insurance.
>>>>
>>>>So why is it not happening.  Apparently the BPA Council have decided to
>>>>have a 'consultation period' of about a year.  Was that the motion on
>>>>the ballot paper?  NO.
>>>>
>>>>Why have the membership not got what they voted for?
>>>>
>>>>Apparently there may be additional costs with implementing the new
>>>>changes.
>>>>Why were we not told at the AGM?  The motion was placed at least 40
>>>>days before the AGM.  Did anyone read the insurance contract -
>>>>including the person who signed it?
>>>>
>>>>Does the membership run the BPA?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a very complex issue but the short answer is that you, the BPA,
>>> can't afford it. There was a Drop Zone Operators meeting this week at
>>> the BPA to discuss the issue so I'm sure that your DZO will be able to
>>> explain it to you in detail, if he/she was there (if not, why not?). The
>>> membership voted at the AGM when we were not in possession of all the
>>> facts. However, that applies to most votes, especially General
>>> Elections!
>>>
>>> I don't have time to get in to it right now but basically, the increased
>>> premiums would be in the region of £100K which equates to around £20 for
>>> each full BPA member.
>>>
>>> I'd be more impressed if you put your name to your post.
>>>
>>> Colin Fitzmaurice 
>>> http://www.theparachutecentre.com
>>> The Parachute Centre
>>> Tilstock Airfield
>>> Whitchurch
>>> Shropshire SY13 2HA
>>> UK
>>>
>>> +44 1948 841111
>>
>>
>
>

Oh...OK got it now.

"Fred"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.1e6c43d7d6dc2cb0989687@news.btinternet.com...
> Sorry, that was my feeble attempt at some obscure form of humour.
> The answer is that, obviously, we do.
> The bulk of it as Members of the BPA, and most of the remainder as
> taxpayers.
> I hope they are spending our hard earned (in my case at least), money
> wisely.
>
> In article <dtsskh$k12$00$1@news.t-online.com>, PaulMoore@t-online.de
> says...
>> OK Fred.....you got me......who pays for it then?
>>
>> paul
>>
>>
>> "Fred"  wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1e6b8906980711a3989686@news.btinternet.com...
>> > In article ,
>> > prisoner_nosix@yahoo.com says...
>> > <CUT>
>> >>
>> >> Does the membership run the BPA?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I'm not sure who runs the BPA, but I can tell you who pays for it if
>> > that will help.
>> > -- 
>> > Doris: "If God had meant you to fly he would have given you wings".
>> > Ken: "If God had meant you to Skydive, he would have given you a 
>> > brain".
>>
>>
>>

I am still waiting for an answer as to why we were not given all of the
facts at the AGM?

Simple question...simply no answer?

ADAM

Ring the BPA office and speak to Martin Shuttleworth. He might shed some
light on it.

 wrote in message
news:1141230848.705949.54690@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I am still waiting for an answer as to why we were not given all of the
> facts at the AGM?
>
> Simple question...simply no answer?
>
> ADAM
>

this newsgroup, has never been and will never be, the place to ask, and 
receive formal questions about BPA matters.

Although I am no expert on such matters, even I can see this is a 'no 
brain-er'.

Have you tried any other methods, other than here ??????
If you have then great, if not then wake up and smell the coffee.

Gary

 wrote in message 
news:1141230848.705949.54690@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I am still waiting for an answer as to why we were not given all of the
> facts at the AGM?
>
> Simple question...simply no answer?
>
> ADAM
>

"Gary McGuinness"  wrote in message 
news:aYwNf.2974$HV7.1852@newsfe08.ams...
> this newsgroup, has never been and will never be, the place to ask, and 
> receive formal questions about BPA matters.
>
> Although I am no expert on such matters, even I can see this is a 'no 
> brain-er'.
>
> Have you tried any other methods, other than here ??????
> If you have then great, if not then wake up and smell the coffee.
>
> Gary
>


but why shouldn't it be Gary?

by failing to use a vehicle like this to disseminate information they are 
letting down the membership.

If they won't use this - then why not set up a NG that has to be logged on 
by the membership?

its 2006 - these things are possible.

Mick

You bring up a very valid point; I might have some information that
could be of use

I was part of the Council sub-committee (with Steve Hoy & Spotty
Bowles) who set up the Communications group. Phil Gibbs, often knocked,
took the wise proposal to set up the group when he saw the
communications function of the Association becoming more important last
century; he also acknowledged that when the Development committee had
tried to manage the magazine, they cocked it up (the new-comers will
not remember the late mags or the £50k that the publisher tried to
take off the BPA - it ended up in court!)

The web site was initially set up from the budget of the first time
jumper; it was only when it had proved itself that it was funded by the
full members. It was much debated in the Comms comm whether the BPA
should host a N/G; it was decided that it would take too much
management time (& who would do the role - Council members were
volunteers with other things to get on with, the office were not in a
position to take it on). The worry was that there would be rogue posts,
and how to deal with them

Do you not put them on the N/G (& risk being accused on ruling with a
communist-type hand, portraying the sport as a wonderful world) or
allow everything & risk a pathetic whine from some members of the
membership which would be seen by the Sports Council (whose funding we
were desperately trying to hold onto at that stage)? The decision taken
was to let the set up of an independent N/G, not sanctioned by the BPA,
to exist to fulfill the role. That way freedom of speech could happen &
the BPA should retain its freedom of movement

There are some members of the association who do not comprehend what
the roles of John & Tony are & hence throw a lot of crap at them. If I
had their jobs I would have resigned by now as I am not a strong enough
personality to put up with the unfounded accusations. They have my full
respect for not only sticking at it, but doing a very productive job.
They do have some easy days, but there are a lot more much harder
weeks. I believe they have achieved much more than what they have been
credited for, plus done a lot of good for the sport. Without their
efforts I am convinced that the sport would not be continuing with as
much freedom as it has here currently - considering the CAA, the nanny
state approach of the Government & our membership of the European Union
with its additional rules & standards

All this said I do not want to praise Tony & John here. Those of you on
this N/G who know me should trust that I spent a lot of time getting to
know their roles whilst writing one of the 5 year Development plans & I
think they are positive assets for the BPA. Those of you who do not
know me, then you can take or leave my words - it makes no difference
to me. I stood down from Council after a rogue email (attributed to
someone else, but no one ever admitted who originated it) accused me of
not pulling for the cause. You say that we could all have to log on to
register our views but if emails could be traced exactly then people
might not be so open with their comments, plus people like me (who is
no longer a member of the BPA) could not contribute

Anyway, back to this N/G. It is independent of the BPA. If you want to
find out answers to specific points then the advice given by previous
posts is correct. Go & see them (phone up first to book in!), but I
would recommend doing via a Council member (you could always take the
Council member to that eventual meeting, the Council members I know are
always wanting to learn more & would assist the members however they
could). My first move would be to write to the chairman & David
Hickling who headed up the insurance group, to ask them who to direct
questions to. They will either say ask themselves or direct you
further. Then address the questions to them. It is easier to ask the
barrage of points by email (it is faster & allows more precision), so
that they can get the answers if they do not know all the facts
themselves. This can always be followed up by a phone call if the
Council member says - "phone me & we can talk it over"

I do not think I know who Adam is. What is his DZ? What is his level of
experience? I was on Council from 1995 for 5 years. Hence my
information could be out of date, but I suspect it would be a more
productive route to follow than just sounding off on this N/G

All this said I do know that most members of Council do read this N/G.
I have even been threatened by a Scottish member of Council that if I
continued to reveal my opinions on this N/G, in the lead up to election
(although the comments were clearly labelled as my personal opinions &
with the advice to the general membership not to follow my voting
choices) - that he would see that I was not in a position to offer this
advice in the future

I am disappointed that one of them does not find the time to add
information to this N/G. By not continuing the communication I do feel
that they are letting down the membership. Our sport has a lot of
rumours & they are easily squashed by having the correct information.
This N/G is read by a lot of the membership (when was this question
asked in a membership survey last?) & a little time here could be very
productive in joining us all together in a common cause. I know that
Nigel Holland did make good effort in this department; often using this
N/G to inform on a more frequent basis than other forms of
communication, & hence I was very disappointed when he did not make it
back onto Council. Geordie Page, John Horne & Paul Moore (at least the
last two have not completely disappeared since making it on) were also
more vocal on this N/G before they joined Council. Jim White was a
recent Council member who might become more obvious on this N/G now he
is off...

Nigel was a good case of having his heart in the right place - he was
good for the sport; but he did not have the depth of experience to take
on a role informing the membership on a wide range of issues. Hence my
advice to Adam to say: find out who can answer the questions on Council
& perhaps post the answers to his points on this N/G for the benefit of
the rest of us. If he continues to throw dirt in a public way, the
Council will not go out of their way (& their own time) to help him.
The losers will be himself & the membership as the information gap will
be re-enforced. He will have the chance to do something positive for
the sport

Ignore those who say that if you are that concerned you should join
Council & sort it out for yourself. I respect that most of us do not
have the time to do this; but would recommend that we should work
pro-actively to support/ help Council. This will enable the office to
get on with their job more efficiently & thus the sport will benefit

Anyway, I have rambled on for long enough

Adam - do some of the actions above & get back to the rest of us!

Look forward to hearing from you

regards

charles ross





Mick Cooper wrote:
> "Gary McGuinness"  wrote in message
> news:aYwNf.2974$HV7.1852@newsfe08.ams...
> > this newsgroup, has never been and will never be, the place to ask, and
> > receive formal questions about BPA matters.
> >
> > Although I am no expert on such matters, even I can see this is a 'no
> > brain-er'.
> >
> > Have you tried any other methods, other than here ??????
> > If you have then great, if not then wake up and smell the coffee.
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
>
> but why shouldn't it be Gary?
>
> by failing to use a vehicle like this to disseminate information they are
> letting down the membership.
>
> If they won't use this - then why not set up a NG that has to be logged on
> by the membership?
> 
> its 2006 - these things are possible.

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:1141291922.657201.76600@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mick

You bring up a very valid point; I might have some information that
could be of use


<Big Snip>
The worry was that there would be rogue posts,
and how to deal with them

>easy - you only get on by authenticating who you are - and no-one posts 
>anonymously. Anyone who is abusive or steps out of line gets the post 
>pulled and they are dealt with (banned for a month etc)

.. That way freedom of speech could happen &
the BPA should retain its freedom of movement

>Only outright abuse would be punishable - having the right to speak should 
>be applauded - as it shows a transpanency in the running of the 
>organisation. Throttlking the voice of the membership is more likely to get 
>funding pulled - if the organisation cannot run itself or defend its 
>actions then it shouldn't be doing the job.

There are some members of the association who do not comprehend what
the roles of John & Tony are & hence throw a lot of crap at them. If I
had their jobs I would have resigned by now as I am not a strong enough
personality to put up with the unfounded accusations. <Big Snip of bigging 
up H&B!)

>Unfounded accusations and ill informed comments can be put to rest 
>immediately by there being an opportunity for people to ask - and be given 
>an answer. Some stuff will become old chestnuts and come round time and 
>again - so someone builds an FAQ section, which repeat comments or 
>questions get referred to.

<Snip - blimey Charles you do go on.....>.
You say that we could all have to log on to
register our views but if emails could be traced exactly then people
might not be so open with their comments, plus people like me (who is
no longer a member of the BPA) could not contribute.

> Then join up Charles - or become a sleeping member - or whatever. If 
> people don't have the balls to ask a question without remaining anonymous 
> then they should keep their own council, rather than slagging off the BPA 
> council. Sniping is weak and reprehensible - lets have a forum where 
> people can speak their mind - and an adjacent forum where people can ask 
> the elected members questions that they feel are important.

Anyway, back to this N/G. It is independent of the BPA.

> Thanks for that Charles - I think we worked it out - owing to the fact 
> that the 2 or 3 people you mentioned are the only ones who have the energy 
> to make the effort - by the way - I think you missed Andy Scott out, who 
> also is prepared to use this medium to answer questions.

I do not think I know who Adam is. What is his DZ? What is his level of
experience? I was on Council from 1995 for 5 years. Hence my
information could be out of date, but I suspect it would be a more
productive route to follow than just sounding off on this N/G

> Only because of the reasons we have discussed

All this said I do know that most members of Council do read this N/G.
I have even been threatened by a Scottish member of Council that if I
continued to reveal my opinions on this N/G, in the lead up to election
(although the comments were clearly labelled as my personal opinions &
with the advice to the general membership not to follow my voting
choices) - that he would see that I was not in a position to offer this
advice in the future

> Typical Jock - always looking for a fight.

I am disappointed that one of them does not find the time to add
information to this N/G.

> So are we - and we pay our membership - :o)

Nigel was a good case of having his heart in the right place - he was
good for the sport; but he did not have the depth of experience to take
on a role informing the membership on a wide range of issues.

> Nigel made himself available as a conduit for the members (to approach 
> issues they felt were important to them) - how many of the elected members 
> do that publicly. Like him or loathe him Nigel was a busy bunny who made 
> an effort to be counted.

Anyway, I have rambled on for long enough

> you think?  :o)

Mick

Good to hear that in essence we agree on most points, perhaps our
differences are in the way it is to be implemented successfully

I make no apologies for going into greater detail; there are many who
read this N/G who do not know the background information & are grateful
for it - as you know: presume people do not know anything & show the
method - thus people can comprehend easier, why decisions are made that
way

Why should I give over £100 of my money for something that I no longer
do? I can't even claim tax back on it! When the BPA offers something in
terms of value-for-money for non-jumpers I might reconsider. The key
thing is that I think I might have brought new & worthwhile information
to this thread, which will help it progress. If I had to be a member,
this information would not be posted. You talk about freedom &
democracy - then why are my views only valid when I have paid money?

I still maintain, based on extensive published research, that if people
have to go through a registration process then they will not be so free
with their views. I am not trying to create a smoke-screen that
anonymous posters can slag of others, but I think that Adam might have
a very valid point. Although I want him to publicly declare who he is &
his connection to this thread he has chosen not to. It does not make
his views any interesting. He has chosen to hide & he has not even been
asked to register who he is. If the N/G followed your recommendations
then I can only presume his post would not have been made & thus this
tangential, but constructive, communication would not be happening

Can I ask who would moderate the N/G? The office are not in a position
to & I am sure that the people with the real information have no desire
to. The moderator would have to be on call everyday & would they have
to represent to views of the Association. Have you got the time to do
this - what would happen if you disappeared off to jump in the States -
do you appoint a suitably experienced deputy, or are messages just not
posted? If it was you - would you want payment for doing the task? If
there were to be bans, then who decides the how severe the ban will be:
whether it is for a week or a couple of months? Will there have to be a
committee of at least 3 people than need to decide - plus the expenses
that this incurs? I hope the humours posts are not taken at face value
& result in banning orders (the whole thing about more regulation
scares me - too nanny state!)

This FAQ - who is going to come up with it? I have challenged Adam to a
course of action & then to report back to the N/G. If I make the
challenge to you to come up with the FAQ & then present it to this N/G,
it will be smoothed out here & then can be presented to Communications
comm. Having little work to do to it the committee will find it hard to
turn down the FAQ section & then will be able to use it on their
web-site. It thus can be used in conjunction with this N/G, but not as
part of it (for reasons discussed above). As you are so keen for this
to happen I am sure you will have the energy to make this happen -
hence I look forward to your posts. I just hope others have the
enthusiasm to help you, if they don't, you will not be able to present
Comms with a finished product & it might well be taken that there is
not a demand for the role of the FAQ...

I do not know much about Andy Scott - but you are right - he has made
posts here & I missed acknowledging them

The BPA web site has a method of contacting each Council member
electronically for questions to be asked. I would like that bit of the
web-site to be as a forum, where the rest of us can see the debates. It
is a good idea of yours & suggest you pursue it with Eddie Jones (he is
the Chair of Comms, I think). If the BPA did this, would that fulfill
your requests? Would there be a need for a regulated N/G as well as a
message board for contact with Council members?

I would also like the Agendas of each meeting to be posted on the
web-site before each meeting (at least the weekend before), so those of
us with an interest in a particular point can attend the meeting - but
this is a different subject

Whatever happens, I think that this particular N/G will continue. I
imagine people like Adam want it to. There is a forum section on
dropzone.com & I see someone has been trying to set up
ukskydiver.co.uk, but I get the impression that the lack of posts on
this reflects that there is no real demand for it that is not satisfied
by other communication devices. I would welcome just the one place to
exchange views & for Council members to contribute to that forum as
well - but why can they not use this N/G that already exists?

I still think that allowing a N/G like this, without a moderator,
serves a very valid role. You know the expression: if it ain't broke -
don't fix it!

Look at the facts. The BPA does successfully run the sport & is
answerable to its members via the Council. I think the breakdown in
communication is between the Council & its members. The office has many
pressing matters & if they spent their time continually communicating
with members then they would not be able to do the job that they are
doing currently. The BPA does not throttle the voice of the membership;
the BPA does what the Council directs it to do. The Council might be
suppressing the voice of the membership...

The other option is to have an extra person in the office who acts as
the link between the membership on this N/G & the officials. I reckon
that there are less than 300 people who post on this N/G each year. The
new person's salary would be about £20,000, plus there would be
£10,000's worth of expenses (a conservative estimate). Do we charge
everyone who posts here £100 a year for the right to post here - or
pass on this in a membership charge of a £5 for the 80% of members who
do not post here?

Once you have considered & answered all the practicalities of the
options then I think there will be forward movement

I look forward to hearing you comments Mick & then seeing the work you
are going to put into the FAQ section of the BPA web-site posted here
for further direction

Adam, a plea again - reveal who you are

regards

charles ross

I am still watching the news group and read the posts but the sad fact is as 
soon as I express my opinion people then say the BPA said this.  I and most 
of council agree that the membership voted on the insurance issue not 
knowing that it would result in a increase in premium a realistic 
consequence of asking the underwriters to accept more risk.  If Adam or 
anyone else would like to discuss the matter in any more detail I will 
happily discuss it but the NG is not the place it would only result in me 
upsetting someone or vice versa.

Regards
Geordie
"charles"  wrote in message 
news:1141383458.583986.177440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Mick

Good to hear that in essence we agree on most points, perhaps our
differences are in the way it is to be implemented successfully

I make no apologies for going into greater detail; there are many who
read this N/G who do not know the background information & are grateful
for it - as you know: presume people do not know anything & show the
method - thus people can comprehend easier, why decisions are made that
way

Why should I give over £100 of my money for something that I no longer
do? I can't even claim tax back on it! When the BPA offers something in
terms of value-for-money for non-jumpers I might reconsider. The key
thing is that I think I might have brought new & worthwhile information
to this thread, which will help it progress. If I had to be a member,
this information would not be posted. You talk about freedom &
democracy - then why are my views only valid when I have paid money?

I still maintain, based on extensive published research, that if people
have to go through a registration process then they will not be so free
with their views. I am not trying to create a smoke-screen that
anonymous posters can slag of others, but I think that Adam might have
a very valid point. Although I want him to publicly declare who he is &
his connection to this thread he has chosen not to. It does not make
his views any interesting. He has chosen to hide & he has not even been
asked to register who he is. If the N/G followed your recommendations
then I can only presume his post would not have been made & thus this
tangential, but constructive, communication would not be happening

Can I ask who would moderate the N/G? The office are not in a position
to & I am sure that the people with the real information have no desire
to. The moderator would have to be on call everyday & would they have
to represent to views of the Association. Have you got the time to do
this - what would happen if you disappeared off to jump in the States -
do you appoint a suitably experienced deputy, or are messages just not
posted? If it was you - would you want payment for doing the task? If
there were to be bans, then who decides the how severe the ban will be:
whether it is for a week or a couple of months? Will there have to be a
committee of at least 3 people than need to decide - plus the expenses
that this incurs? I hope the humours posts are not taken at face value
& result in banning orders (the whole thing about more regulation
scares me - too nanny state!)

This FAQ - who is going to come up with it? I have challenged Adam to a
course of action & then to report back to the N/G. If I make the
challenge to you to come up with the FAQ & then present it to this N/G,
it will be smoothed out here & then can be presented to Communications
comm. Having little work to do to it the committee will find it hard to
turn down the FAQ section & then will be able to use it on their
web-site. It thus can be used in conjunction with this N/G, but not as
part of it (for reasons discussed above). As you are so keen for this
to happen I am sure you will have the energy to make this happen -
hence I look forward to your posts. I just hope others have the
enthusiasm to help you, if they don't, you will not be able to present
Comms with a finished product & it might well be taken that there is
not a demand for the role of the FAQ...

I do not know much about Andy Scott - but you are right - he has made
posts here & I missed acknowledging them

The BPA web site has a method of contacting each Council member
electronically for questions to be asked. I would like that bit of the
web-site to be as a forum, where the rest of us can see the debates. It
is a good idea of yours & suggest you pursue it with Eddie Jones (he is
the Chair of Comms, I think). If the BPA did this, would that fulfill
your requests? Would there be a need for a regulated N/G as well as a
message board for contact with Council members?

I would also like the Agendas of each meeting to be posted on the
web-site before each meeting (at least the weekend before), so those of
us with an interest in a particular point can attend the meeting - but
this is a different subject

Whatever happens, I think that this particular N/G will continue. I
imagine people like Adam want it to. There is a forum section on
dropzone.com & I see someone has been trying to set up
ukskydiver.co.uk, but I get the impression that the lack of posts on
this reflects that there is no real demand for it that is not satisfied
by other communication devices. I would welcome just the one place to
exchange views & for Council members to contribute to that forum as
well - but why can they not use this N/G that already exists?

I still think that allowing a N/G like this, without a moderator,
serves a very valid role. You know the expression: if it ain't broke -
don't fix it!

Look at the facts. The BPA does successfully run the sport & is
answerable to its members via the Council. I think the breakdown in
communication is between the Council & its members. The office has many
pressing matters & if they spent their time continually communicating
with members then they would not be able to do the job that they are
doing currently. The BPA does not throttle the voice of the membership;
the BPA does what the Council directs it to do. The Council might be
suppressing the voice of the membership...

The other option is to have an extra person in the office who acts as
the link between the membership on this N/G & the officials. I reckon
that there are less than 300 people who post on this N/G each year. The
new person's salary would be about £20,000, plus there would be
£10,000's worth of expenses (a conservative estimate). Do we charge
everyone who posts here £100 a year for the right to post here - or
pass on this in a membership charge of a £5 for the 80% of members who
do not post here?

Once you have considered & answered all the practicalities of the
options then I think there will be forward movement

I look forward to hearing you comments Mick & then seeing the work you
are going to put into the FAQ section of the BPA web-site posted here
for further direction

Adam, a plea again - reveal who you are

regards

charles ross

Hi all,

I've been following this thread with interest but have'nt said much purely 
because I've been too busy with other things.  Charles.....nice of you to 
miss me :-))  Anyway, now that I've got a weekend off and some time on my 
hands (runway 10cm deep in snow!) here goes....

First of all......I know who Adam is and I discussed this with him the other 
day.  I have briefed him up on the events of the AGM, insurance thing and 
'consultation period' etc etc and he is better informed now than he was 
before he demanded an answer to his question.  If Adam would like to 
identify himself here that is up to him.  I will not do it for him. 
Interestingly enough, Adam has just joined the DFV and very soon will no 
longer be a BPA member.  I'm not sure if he realises that if he wants to 
jump at Lippspringe he will have to become a BPA member again.  Then again 
he's just about to go to Iraq again for the summer so it even might all be 
sorted out by the time he gets back.  I hope so.
Secondly......I agree with both Charles and Geordie....at least in part.  I 
have always posted here with my name (notice I've now put my surname on 
properties) as I feel that I'm happy to stand up and be counted for whatever 
I say.  I will stand by whatever I say and if I'm wrong (and its pointed out 
to me) I will admit my failings.  However, as an individual I have the right 
to my own point of view.  That is one of the most basic precepts of our 
democratic society.  The right for anyone to say what they think is very 
important BUT they should also do so publicly and have the balls to put 
their name to it.  Adam....take note.

This is where Council comes into it.  I know that Council members read this 
forum and they would be daft not to keep track of what goes on here and at 
DZ.com etc.  However I can identify with Geordie when he says that people 
will take him out of context and assume that because he is a Council member 
whatever he says must be the BPA party line.
Everyone must remember that everyone, including me and Geordie are entitled 
to a personal opinion but the 'party line' only comes from around the 
Council table at the bi-monthly meetings.  The 'party line' for want of a 
better phrase, is spoken in the council minutes which are published on the 
BPA website for all to read.  All BPA members are entitled to attend Council 
and sub-committee meetings and observe the process and I would urge as many 
of the membership as possible to actually do so.  (not all together please 
the room is only small!!)

If Council members choose not to respond here or anywhere else that is their 
personal right to not do so.  I think some would actually like to respond 
but feel that it would not be appropriate to do so for whatever reason. 
Well, thats OK too.  I dont know if there is a ' BPA official policy' on 
responding on newsgroups or not.......certainly on becoming a Council member 
recently no-one has told me I cant........its just I think for some reason 
Council members are 'dissuaded' from doing so.  You'll have to ask some of 
the longer standing Council members for clarification on that point as I'm 
just not sure.

Lastly.......(my posts are almost as long as Charles!) ....the title of the 
thread: BPA - who runs it? Is a good question and deserves an answer.  Its 
very simple.  The membership are represented by the BPA Staff, Council 
members and members of other Committees and sub-Committees who carry out the 
wishes of the membership and administer the Association for the good of all 
on a daily basis.

There now.......thats Adam's question answered.  Its not 'ard is it??
Regards to all,

Paul
BPA 39691


"Geordie Page"  wrote in message 
news:6SZNf.88341$Rw6.87700@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>I am still watching the news group and read the posts but the sad fact is 
>as soon as I express my opinion people then say the BPA said this.  I and 
>most of council agree that the membership voted on the insurance issue not 
>knowing that it would result in a increase in premium a realistic 
>consequence of asking the underwriters to accept more risk.  If Adam or 
>anyone else would like to discuss the matter in any more detail I will 
>happily discuss it but the NG is not the place it would only result in me 
>upsetting someone or vice versa.
>
> Regards
> Geordie
> "charles"  wrote in message 
> news:1141383458.583986.177440@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Mick
>
> Good to hear that in essence we agree on most points, perhaps our
> differences are in the way it is to be implemented successfully
>
> I make no apologies for going into greater detail; there are many who
> read this N/G who do not know the background information & are grateful
> for it - as you know: presume people do not know anything & show the
> method - thus people can comprehend easier, why decisions are made that
> way
>
> Why should I give over £100 of my money for something that I no longer
> do? I can't even claim tax back on it! When the BPA offers something in
> terms of value-for-money for non-jumpers I might reconsider. The key
> thing is that I think I might have brought new & worthwhile information
> to this thread, which will help it progress. If I had to be a member,
> this information would not be posted. You talk about freedom &
> democracy - then why are my views only valid when I have paid money?
>
> I still maintain, based on extensive published research, that if people
> have to go through a registration process then they will not be so free
> with their views. I am not trying to create a smoke-screen that
> anonymous posters can slag of others, but I think that Adam might have
> a very valid point. Although I want him to publicly declare who he is &
> his connection to this thread he has chosen not to. It does not make
> his views any interesting. He has chosen to hide & he has not even been
> asked to register who he is. If the N/G followed your recommendations
> then I can only presume his post would not have been made & thus this
> tangential, but constructive, communication would not be happening
>
> Can I ask who would moderate the N/G? The office are not in a position
> to & I am sure that the people with the real information have no desire
> to. The moderator would have to be on call everyday & would they have
> to represent to views of the Association. Have you got the time to do
> this - what would happen if you disappeared off to jump in the States -
> do you appoint a suitably experienced deputy, or are messages just not
> posted? If it was you - would you want payment for doing the task? If
> there were to be bans, then who decides the how severe the ban will be:
> whether it is for a week or a couple of months? Will there have to be a
> committee of at least 3 people than need to decide - plus the expenses
> that this incurs? I hope the humours posts are not taken at face value
> & result in banning orders (the whole thing about more regulation
> scares me - too nanny state!)
>
> This FAQ - who is going to come up with it? I have challenged Adam to a
> course of action & then to report back to the N/G. If I make the
> challenge to you to come up with the FAQ & then present it to this N/G,
> it will be smoothed out here & then can be presented to Communications
> comm. Having little work to do to it the committee will find it hard to
> turn down the FAQ section & then will be able to use it on their
> web-site. It thus can be used in conjunction with this N/G, but not as
> part of it (for reasons discussed above). As you are so keen for this
> to happen I am sure you will have the energy to make this happen -
> hence I look forward to your posts. I just hope others have the
> enthusiasm to help you, if they don't, you will not be able to present
> Comms with a finished product & it might well be taken that there is
> not a demand for the role of the FAQ...
>
> I do not know much about Andy Scott - but you are right - he has made
> posts here & I missed acknowledging them
>
> The BPA web site has a method of contacting each Council member
> electronically for questions to be asked. I would like that bit of the
> web-site to be as a forum, where the rest of us can see the debates. It
> is a good idea of yours & suggest you pursue it with Eddie Jones (he is
> the Chair of Comms, I think). If the BPA did this, would that fulfill
> your requests? Would there be a need for a regulated N/G as well as a
> message board for contact with Council members?
>
> I would also like the Agendas of each meeting to be posted on the
> web-site before each meeting (at least the weekend before), so those of
> us with an interest in a particular point can attend the meeting - but
> this is a different subject
>
> Whatever happens, I think that this particular N/G will continue. I
> imagine people like Adam want it to. There is a forum section on
> dropzone.com & I see someone has been trying to set up
> ukskydiver.co.uk, but I get the impression that the lack of posts on
> this reflects that there is no real demand for it that is not satisfied
> by other communication devices. I would welcome just the one place to
> exchange views & for Council members to contribute to that forum as
> well - but why can they not use this N/G that already exists?
>
> I still think that allowing a N/G like this, without a moderator,
> serves a very valid role. You know the expression: if it ain't broke -
> don't fix it!
>
> Look at the facts. The BPA does successfully run the sport & is
> answerable to its members via the Council. I think the breakdown in
> communication is between the Council & its members. The office has many
> pressing matters & if they spent their time continually communicating
> with members then they would not be able to do the job that they are
> doing currently. The BPA does not throttle the voice of the membership;
> the BPA does what the Council directs it to do. The Council might be
> suppressing the voice of the membership...
>
> The other option is to have an extra person in the office who acts as
> the link between the membership on this N/G & the officials. I reckon
> that there are less than 300 people who post on this N/G each year. The
> new person's salary would be about £20,000, plus there would be
> £10,000's worth of expenses (a conservative estimate). Do we charge
> everyone who posts here £100 a year for the right to post here - or
> pass on this in a membership charge of a £5 for the 80% of members who
> do not post here?
>
> Once you have considered & answered all the practicalities of the
> options then I think there will be forward movement
>
> I look forward to hearing you comments Mick & then seeing the work you
> are going to put into the FAQ section of the BPA web-site posted here
> for further direction
>
> Adam, a plea again - reveal who you are
>
> regards
>
> charles ross
>
>

Possibly as a way of closing this thread - as Paul has provided the
answers that Adam asked in the first place - we have further facts to
that which was asked

Full respect to Geordie & Paul (plus Andy & John when they post). I
know that if there was a vote tomorrow who I would vote for. If a
Council member wants to build up a reputation by actively posting here,
with the wider membership, I would welcome it

One word of caution I would advise to the general membership is that as
a Council member - if you do your job responsibily - you do have a
general lack of time. The idea behind sub-committees & delegation of
jobs is that a lot more work can be done. When a Council member is
asked a question chances are that they are not in a position to give a
comprehensive answer themselves & will have to consult several others
from Council & the staff. This will be on top of their delegated
work-load. I only really started to comprehend the workings of the BPA
once I had been on Council for four years, had a lot of time on my
hands (was on a sickie caused by a stiletto) & was chair of 3 main
committees of Council - plus was delegated to carry out a review of the
Association for the next 5-year plan. In other words do not expect an
answer to be easy to find & especially just because a guy has got into
Council in the last couple of years - he will not know it all! The guys
who had the best advice were the senior staff (not allowed to big up
Tony any more) or the Presidents

A Council member is a volunteer & probably wants to jump too. There is
only so much time in a day, especially if they are working for someone
else!

It will be interesting to see if both Adam & Mick post their findings
here on the N/G. I gather you want the Council to do some work for you
& the membership; then why not set the example by producing the answers
to the questions that have been posed of you

You might even motivate me to get onto Council/ Communications as to
why Agendas are not published on the BPA site before the meetings & why
we have to wait for 2 months minimum for Minutes to be there for all to
see (look back in the records & there was a proposal that if no one had
placed an objection to the contents of the minutes within a fortnight,
that they could be published & circulated: if there was an objection
then the rest of the minutes - less the disputed area - could be
published)

If this gets progressed then who knows there might even be a
messageboard on the site where Council members give answers to problems
for all to see!

As to Paul's comments about why more people do not attend meetings -
they are held at an inconvenient location & time to most of us. In my
day the visitors were stuck at the end of the room without even having
an agenda & then had to be pushed out of the door when the Council
decided to discuss really contraversal things 'in camera'. Also most
newcomers were unfamiliar with the way that items are dealt with (the
item must be on the Agenda a fortnight before the meetings, how all
questions have to go through the chair, et cetera). In other words it
was not the most friendly experience

Anyway from what Paul & Geordie have said we must respect that if they
post here it is their PERSONAL opinion. If we want them & the silent
other members of Council to give their point of view, we must give them
praise for doing so & respect their limitations of information: the
easy way to do this (in my opinion) is to only vote for the Council
members who do actively engauge in dialog here...

regards

charles ross