USPA election candidate opinions

[bigjim 0]

I had fun when I was a student. ***

...and if you are a DZO and if you look at fun in terms of profit per jump, he had considerably more fun with you as a student than he has with you now.

[quade 4]

Quote

Perhaps, but it was not BOD-sanctioned fun.

Well, then, how do you think I feel when I'm -specifically- told by the rules that a camera jump isn't considered to be a fun jump!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[livendive 8]

Quote

Lemme get this straight -- you want the USPA to allow AFF certification courses at non-group member DZ -- right? In other words, they normally don't want to have anything to do with the USPA, but in this one case they'll make an exception?!? What's wrong with our organization making a few bucks off of these non-group member DZs? I just don't see the logic in NOT charging them!

Let's not limit ourselves to AFF certification courses, but rather all instructor certification courses. Instructor certification courses are a benefit for the individual members. You only need to look back and see that they existed long before there was a Group Member program to see that. Those courses "belong" to the jumpers who pay their USPA dues, regardless of where they jump. Now, with the advent of the Group Member program, someone got the mistaken idea that hosting certification courses is a benefit of Group Membership. Plain and simple, it's not.

I jump at a non-GM dz. We have a S/L and IAD cert course every few years. The closest GM DZ is nearly 300 miles away. The possibility exists that I will want to host a course for some of our up and coming jumpers next year. Since I'm USPA and the candidates are USPA, why should I have to pay $400 to USPA just to host it locally? The bottom line is that the Group Membership stole this benefit away from the Individual Jumpers and claimed it for their own financial benefit.

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

I totally agree with livendive on this one. It's not that non-GM dropzones don't want anything to do with USPA, it's just that they don't believe that what they are doing needs any further outside influence. I have been to a couple of non-GM dropzones and both had fully qualified USPA rated instructors. Every member of the staff was a member, and, as per the USPA SIM, every student was required to join the organization at the stated time (before the fourth jump in most cases). As a member, more specifically a group of members, looking to get that next rating, I should absolutely be able to contract a course director to come wherever the hell I please. So long as the facilities are there, and the costs are paid, it sould absolutely not make a difference whether or not that location is an "approved" USPA dropzone. I can personally think of several places where USPA AFF certification courses are run for the military (shouldn't matter) which don't fall under the "USPA group member" banner. Bottom line here is that I think that forcing a dropzone to "get with the program" and join as a group member just so that they can host a USPA instructional course for individual dues-paying members is wrong.

Chuck

[quade 4]

Let me see if I understand our point of view correctly, because I think you -may- have actually changed my mind a bit on this one.

What you're saying is that by holding an AFF cert course at your non-GM DZ it doesn't take any business away from a GM DZ. If that is, in fact, the case, then I agree with you. It should probably be allowed without any further cost.

However, let's say that there are two DZs very close to one another -- one is a GM and the other is a non-GM. Is it still fair to hold it at the non-GM DZ at the loss of business toward the GM DZ? -Shouldn't- there be some preferential treament (call it protection if you want) be given by the USPA toward GM DZs?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I have been to a couple of non-GM dropzones and both had fully qualified USPA rated instructors. Every member of the staff was a member, and, as per the USPA SIM, every student was required to join the organization at the stated time (before the fourth jump in most cases).

What those non-member dropzones are not doing is helping to finance the development of the training programs, or the government affairs department that keeps them in business.

All the legislative effort USPA puts forth, and development of the instructional programs, costs money. USPA can pass 100 percent of that cost along to you and I as individual members, or they can charge a percentage to us, and a percentage to the profit making dropzones that also derive a benefit.

I like the idea of profitable dropzones footing part of the bill for USPA services. I think they should pay for those services out of their business income, and I like having my slice of the pie (membership fee) subsidized by the businesses that draw profit from the sport.

It bothers me when I see non-group members enjoying the benefits of open skies and quality training programs without paying their fair share.

I should qualify this by making it clear I understand their are other reasons not to join, but I think those non-member DZ's shouldn't be offered the same support as those DZ's that are paying the bills.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

.

Lemme get this straight -- you want the USPA to allow AFF certification courses at non-group member DZ -- right? In other words, they normally don't want to have anything to do with the USPA, but in this one case they'll make an exception?!? What's wrong with our organization making a few bucks off of these non-group member DZs? I just don't see the logic in NOT charging them!

.

I went to the BOD a few years back because I jump at at NON GM DZ and Glenn Bangs told us that absolutely in no way will our dz EVER get an AFF certification course. Well we fought and we got it without having to pay the extra fee - maybe because I sat though the whole damn meeting and paid for our tickets and hotel.

The AFF Certification Course IS FOR USPA MEMBERS.

Don Yahrling made that point. He has held these courses in hotels which are not GM DZ'. and numerous other places because the a GM DZ did not have the facilities.

As a non-GM dz we have alot to do with the USPA. More than most GM DZ's. We require membership and all our instructors are USPA rated. All you get as a group member is cheap advertising.

Why did the individual membership fees go up and not the GM membership fees? I think the GM dz's need to start picking up the slack if they want this program around. I'm tired of paying for it.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[livendive 8]

Quote

What those non-member dropzones are not doing is helping to finance the development of the training programs, or the government affairs department that keeps them in business.

All the legislative effort USPA puts forth, and development of the instructional programs, costs money. USPA can pass 100 percent of that cost along to you and I as individual members, or they can charge a percentage to us, and a percentage to the profit making dropzones that also derive a benefit.

I like the idea of profitable dropzones footing part of the bill for USPA services. I think they should pay for those services out of their business income, and I like having my slice of the pie (membership fee) subsidized by the businesses that draw profit from the sport.

It bothers me when I see non-group members enjoying the benefits of open skies and quality training programs without paying their fair share.

I should qualify this by making it clear I understand their are other reasons not to join, but I think those non-member DZ's shouldn't be offered the same support as those DZ's that are paying the bills.

Simple economics Tom. Those GM dz's aren't actually supporting USPA, their customers are. The GM fee is built into the dz's overhead, which is paid by the fees they charge for slots. If we eliminated the GM program, USPA could continue to do most of the things they are doing, but the individual membership would have to more clearly bear the cost. Either way, you and I are paying those costs, however in the current environment, GM DZ's act as a middleman.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

[It bothers me when I see non-group members enjoying the benefits of open skies and quality training programs without paying their fair share.

I should qualify this by making it clear I understand their are other reasons not to join, but I think those non-member DZ's shouldn't be offered the same support as those DZ's that are paying the bills.

Fair share? Why don't the GM DZ's pay the actual cost of advertising. and what programs and training could be talking about?

What do I deserve as a USPA DUE PAYING member?

Please give a specific example service a non-group member dz has received from the USPA.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Tom, this would all be fine and dandy if that were in fact the case, at least as far as training programs go. The ISP has been in effect for some time now, but yet very few dropzones, Group Member or otherwise, use the thing. We use it at Raeford, both for AFF at the RPC school as well as in the military clubs which operate on our airport. AS far as I can tell, we (as in USPA) didn't really create anything, instead actually just sort of copying the Canadian system. I don't buy that the paltry $350 a year (is that correct?) that the group members pay has any consequence on the amount of money spent on training. As far as I can tell, the GM program is mostly subsidized by individual member dues.

That being said, My dad runs a small GM DZ down in Alabama and I have jumped since 1984 here at Raeford, also a GM dropzone. As far as the question about which of two closely-located dropzones to send an AFF course director to, I say "both." In case you didn't know it, it is absolutely not a hard thing to contract a course director. If two dropzones five miles away from each other each have ten people willing to attend a course, and if there are sufficient AFF designated evaluators to go around, then I promise you that they would both go. As far as I know, none of the current course directors are bound by any "this is my turf" agreements. You have the money, you give one of them a call and lay it on, pure and simple. The money you pay USPA to attend that course is only a small amount of the total cost of the course. We are not training dropzones here, we are training individual instrutor candidates who may or may not even live within the United States, much less on the host dropzone.......

Chuck

[PhreeZone 20]

What are rating fees paying for? What are renewal fees for? What are the course fees for? What is the 30 for an IRM and 30 for the SIM paying for?

>It bothers me when I see non-group members enjoying the benefits of open skies and quality training programs without paying their fair share.

The USPA is there for its members, not just for the DZ's. It just happens that its in the members best intrest for the USPA to work with the DZ's on airspace issues. If a DZ is getting shut out of its air, the USPA should go to bat for all the dues paying members that it represents.

On training issues, the training is for the jumpers, not the DZ. There are lots of clubs out there that try to operate at mimimal member cost and therefore could care less about a profit. If jumpers want to stay informed and current on their training anyone should be able to offer it where ever they want to at no additional fee. If they want to hold a coach course at the PIA they should be able to hold it there with no additional fee. But yet since the PIA is'nt a GM they are charged a fee.

Average cost to every member to keep the same budget and eliminate the GM program is just over $3 a year. I'm sure once the program is elminated there will be a slow decrease in the costs due to printings, phone calls, etc related directly to the GM program being elminated.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

Let me see if I understand our point of view correctly, because I think you -may- have actually changed my mind a bit on this one.

What you're saying is that by holding an AFF cert course at your non-GM DZ it doesn't take any business away from a GM DZ. If that is, in fact, the case, then I agree with you. It should probably be allowed without any further cost.

Excellent...however you still seem to be considering the cert course as a source of business. One of my points is that it's not. It is a benefit of individual membership. Whether or not it makes money for any particular dropzone should be irrelevant. I feel the same way about Nationals, but that's a different discussion altogether.

Quote

However, let's say that there are two DZs very close to one another -- one is a GM and the other is a non-GM. Is it still fair to hold it at the non-GM DZ at the loss of business toward the GM DZ? -Shouldn't- there be some preferential treament (call it protection if you want) be given by the USPA toward GM DZs?

a) How is the GM DZ losing business? If they were hosting the same course at the same time, I'd understand your point and grudgingly admit that yes, there should be only one and it should probably be held at the GM. But how often do you think this really happens?

b) If a group of candidates or a cert course director want rating course "x" at DZ "y" on Dates "s-t", and the same course isn't scheduled for that timeframe in nearby vicinity, can you think of one good reason USPA should charge them $400 more than the next group? Plain and simple, it's a way of GM DZ's trying to prevent non-USPA DZ's from hosting courses because they want to make money off them.

It could very well be that you and I are just looking through completely different eyes on this issue. You jump at Perris. I jump in the middle of nowhere. You see AFF cert courses with 20 people spending a grand apiece. I see S/L courses with 3 candidates paying next to nothing. The nearest GM DZ to your home DZ is Elsinore. The nearest GM DZ to my home has one Cessna and puts up *maybe* 1 load per week average. Probably more like 0.8 loads.

Now I thought about what I said earlier and realized I made an honest mistake (really). When I said the nearest Group Member to my home is nearly 300 miles away, I was wrong. There's one only 7 miles away. It's just so small and rarely in my thoughts that I forgot about it. In any case, the DZO was a student of mine and opened up his own place when he had 50 jumps. It's widely agreed that he doctored his logbook to get his S/L JM rating (i.e. he made up some jumps to reach the 100 jump minimum). It's also generally agreed that he doctored his logbook to get his D, and thus have his JM rating grandfathered to an I last year. Regardless of whether he fudged his numbers, he certainly has less than 250 jumps. In the span of running his own DZ for 3 years, he's put himself in the hospital twice. A student of mine who got the "take up golf" speech headed across town and was accepted despite the fact that I warned the folks there...a few months later he was on a lifeflight. Now the DZO of that Group Member has very little experience, yet he's an S&TA and an I, and thus theoretically qualified to host a S/L rating course (for candidates more experienced than him). I guarantee you that I wouldn't want any of my instructors learning from him. So next year, if the two coaches at my DZ want to get their S/L ratings, should I a) suggest they go get it across town or b) make them pay $200 extra each? Why has USPA taken away door number 3 (let them get it at their home dz for the same price everyone else pays)?

Have I had any success in convincing you that a DZ's affiliation should be a non-issue for rating courses, as they are (supposed to be) a benefit for the individual jumpers, not a revenue source for the drozpones? Rating courses aren't supposed to be about who gets to make the money from them...they're supposed to be about teaching candidates how to teach and ensuring they're capable before turning them loose on students.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jlmiracle 7]

This is the info I pulled off the USPA Website on Group Member DZ's. If someone has something else - lets see it.

Fee's
$100.00 per year for clubs and military

$200.00 per year for dz's that do not operate more than 2 small aircraft

$400.00 per year for the dz's that use more than 2 small aircraft or 1 or more big ones.

$100.00 per year for foreign dz.

There are 218 US dz's listed on the USPA website and 36 Foreign.

best case senario all 218 dz's are paying $400.00
218x400 = 87,200
36 x100 = 3,600

funds received from group member dz $90,800.

2 inch ad in Parachutist is $60.00 per month.
$60 x 12 = $720.00

Who is paying for the extra $320.00 worth of advertising that the GM dz's aren't?


Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

If they want to hold a coach course at the PIA they should be able to hold it there with no additional fee. But yet since the PIA is'nt a GM they are charged a fee.

Average cost to every member to keep the same budget and eliminate the GM program is just over $3 a year. I'm sure once the program is elminated there will be a slow decrease in the costs due to printings, phone calls, etc related directly to the GM program being elminated.

First point...Let me take that back, pre-first point: I was beginning to think this thread was out of control, and we were worthlessly beating an old dead horse. Not so. This thread is now showing 3,086 views, so at least a few of us are interested. Very cool, cuz it's important discussion. I hope there are some new folks lurking and listening.

Now, first point: I'm a Coach Course Director and don't have to charge anybody anything, nor am I restricted in where or when I can offer the course. As far as I know it's my decision. If PIA wanted a course and they had an instructor willing to do it free, then they should have been able to conduct it free. There is a rating fee for the Coach candidates, but that is paid to USPA and is independent of me or the DZ. Likewise with a SL course. In fact, I did a static line course coupled with an IAD course last season and charged nothing.

The second point is the cost of the group member services. I don't think our association costs will go down at all if we eliminate the GM program. There isn't much there that can actually be eliminated. The directory will still be there, but charged 100 percent to member services. Same for Safety and Training costs, Government Affairs, Insurance, and everything else. Those costs are incurred for everybody, but for budgeting reasons they are split into several categories. It's easy to push more of those expenses on us, the individual members, keep the group member fees the same, and show the program as a profit center. Or, the costs can be weighted to the GM program and it will show a loss. That's basic accounting. Costs can be put anyplace where they are reasonable, and it is reasonable to put something like government affairs as an individual service or a group service, or any percentage split. It doesn't matter to me where the costs are placed, or the profit/loss of any individual program. I want those services provided.

Now, as to who is going to pay for them, it's true that if business pay for a group membership they will pass that cost along to consumers. The 34,000 "fun" jumpers are certainly consumers, as are the 250,000 students. I'd like that financial burden covered by the DZ and then passed along to thier customers, us and students. I want the DZ to pay at least a token part of the expenses that keep us in the air.

Look, I think about the big DZ owner with millions of dollars in airplanes, dozens of staff members, thousands of students, and no corporate contribution to the system that makes it all possible. I want that guy, that profit motivated businessman, to pony up and help subsidize the organization. I have no sympathy for his financial health as he tosses thousands of tandems at a couple of hundred bucks a pop.

I like Mike Mullins. I like Larry Hill. I don't like it that Larry is paying part of our administrative costs and Mike isn't, yet both Mike and Larry want the same services. Sorry, I would be very happy if we keep the airspace avaiable for all of us at any dropzone, but limit some of our key services to the dropzones that are actually willing to support the organization.

tom buchanan

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[jlmiracle 7]

Tom - If you look at the above number's I posted - you will see that Larry Hill is not paying his fair share.

Once again - What is Larry Hill paying for that Mike Mullins is getting the benefit of?


Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Who is paying for the extra $320.00 worth of advertising that the GM dz's aren't?

we are, the fun jumpers! I promise you there are more expenses paid by you and me for the GM program. This the USPA is a club not a trade organization. Let them keep the money (the fees)and form their own. If they are truly self supporting then it will not cost them any more. Or the could join the PIA

vote for Jan, Winsor, M Mullins and Don!

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Tom - If you look at the above number's I posted - you will see that Larry Hill is not paying his fair share.

Once again - What is Larry Hill paying for that Mike Mullins is getting the benefit of?

Regulatory support because I'll bet Mike uses the national airspace system.

Publications support because I'll bet Mike uses the SIM.

Instructional support because I'll bet Mike uses USPA trained instructors, and all the support of the Safety and Training department that developed that program.

Mike and Larry use almost all the same services, but the numbers posted indicate that Larry pays about $400.00 for those services, and Mike pays nothing.

$400.00 isn't much, but at least it's something, and I can't figure out how such a small amount of money can be such a big issue to to people. These huge dropzones are turning around hundreds of thousands of dollars and should be able to kick in a few nickels.

And, for those who don't know about these two dropzones in Arizona (and Mike has another in Tenn), the issue that keeps Mike out of the GM program isn't money. But with that said, dropzones should be willing to kick in a few dollars to support the industry that supports us.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[jlmiracle 7]

[reply
Publications support because I'll bet Mike uses the SIM.
and he pays for it too.

Instructional support because I'll bet Mike uses USPA trained instructors, and all the support of the Safety and Training department that developed that program.

yes, we are USPA Instructors - and WE paid for it.

Mike and Larry use almost all the same services, but the numbers posted indicate that Larry pays about $400.00 for those services, and Mike pays nothing.

Larry gets advertising, free copies of publications and forms. Mike pays for his.

$400.00 isn't much, but at least it's something, and I can't figure out how such a small amount of money can be such a big issue to to people. These huge dropzones are turning around hundreds of thousands of dollars and should be able to kick in a few nickels.

no problem, let them pay more.

And, for those who don't know about these two dropzones in Arizona (and Mike has another in Tenn), the issue that keeps Mike out of the GM program isn't money. But with that said, dropzones should be willing to kick in a few dollars to support the industry that supports us.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Perhaps, but I see no issues whatsoever in allowing a DZO to take his own child skydiving -- other than the fact that it's against the USPA rules.

Your quote was replying to the litigation issue. What's preventing a distraught DZO (or their spouse, or ex-spouse, or grandparents in the case of a double fatality) from suing the manufacturer, pilot, or other jumpers?

[Cloudseeder 0]

I know that you don't have any respect for me; you made that pretty obvious with your attitude when I met you at Rantoul.
________________________________________________
Really? Would you explain that statement?

__________________________________________________
I perused the USPA Governance Manual and found section 3-1.2.D.2 on page 40. "If appropriate, minimal editing of the biographical sketches by the committee is authorized to comform to the space available and to provide some uniformity of verbiage and presentation." (italics mine) This section seems to allow editing for reasons of grammar and punctuation, which, if read carefully, section 3-1.2.D.3.e also seems to allow for.
__________________________________________________

Ok I think by now it is obvious that that paragraph does not apply to the candidates' "personal statements".
Will you admit that you were a little too fast on the draw here Lisa?
Will you admit that in your attempt to prove me wrong you never took the time to consider that I just might be right?

__________________________________________________

I find it very hard to believe that someone who is "for the fun jumpers" would stoop to causing the association he wishes to be on the board of to spend the fun jumpers money (USPA dues) on defending said organization from a frivilous lawsuit.
__________________________________________________

There is nothing "frivolous" about this lawsuit Lisa!
USPA has a history of violating Our Rules Of Governance".
Violation of Our Election Rules is the most grevious Governance Violation which could be imposed on any organization!
To accuse me of forcing the jumpers to spend their money is akin to accusing a rape victim of costing the citizens the court costs to plead their case.

Why hasn't USPA simply changed my statement on the website? Why didn't they follow Our Rules originally?

Why are they willing to spend your money to hide my statement in violation of Our rules??

Why did Larry Bagley lie to Bill Von about some Governance Manual requirement that all publications be checked for spelling and capitalization?

People are saying "He won't post his statement".
As previously stated on this thread my attorney has requested that I not divulge particulars.
The fact is that Chris Needels has the original anyway.
If you would like to view the original statement as submited, contact CNeedels@uspa.org
__________________________________________________
Personal attacks and attacks on groups of people are the last resort of someone who has exhausted their argument. It's either attack us or repeat the same tired statements.
__________________________________________________
See and here you are somewhat off base. Now I don't know where you were raised but I was all in the street. If I find myself against one or two people I just take 'em on straight. When eight or twenty or a hundred are against me I put my back to a wall and lash out at all of them. I go wild dog crazy mad.
__________________________________________________

It's the people who AREN'T posting in this thread and participating in your "most excellent entertainment" you should be thinking about... those who are reading but not commenting on your "arguments" and your refusal to post the one thing that would prove your point once and for all.
__________________________________________________
That doesn't concern me. They'll think what they will. I'm not out to persuade anyone. I just tell it like it is.Obviously "It" (USPA) is a hotbed of corruption.
If the Members can't see that after all I've exposed, then that's not my problem. They'll get what their own efforts have afforded them.
__________________________________________________

btw, even sadder when said person has been asked by one of the people who was involved in the situation to stop bringing it up.
__________________________________________________

I'll pm you on that if I can figure out how!

Fair Winds,
"Treetop"

[Cloudseeder 0]

Quote

He is complaining because they fixed his punctuation and capitalization.
__________________________________________________
No Judy, I'm seeking an injunction because even after being alerted to their mistake USPA refuses to present my statement to the Membership.
__________________________________________________
Now he wants to sue the USPA because of it. It sounds like a good waste of my money. Thanks Don!
__________________________________________________

Thank the Executive Director. If you had read my letter to him in its entirety you would realize that I stated that I hoped we could "reason together" and that I would prefer that this matter didn't cost the Membership. Chris is the one who wanted to play *hard ball*.
First they violate the Rules and you guys want to jump me!
I gave them an out . They refuse however ,to release to you my statement.

I'd be wondering why!!!
Is it what I said or how I said it?

Why is USPA willing to expend untold dollars in order to censure me in violation of Our rules??

Yes, something is very wrong here.
It ain't me.

"Treetop'

• Quote

[Cloudseeder 0]

Its really pathetic that people would not send back their proxy last year so some of these election problems could be eliiminated.

Unfortunately there aren't enough skydivers out there that care.


No Judy,
What's really pathetic is that 8 months later you still don't realize that USPA could not allow proxy voting at the Feb BOD meeting.
What's really pathetic is that the BOD voted to spend over $7000 on a solicitation of worthless proxies.

What's most pathetic is the very real fact that when Our Executive Directr realized the fact that their was no provision in Our By-Laws for proxy voting he attempted to slide in wording which would allow it.

LOFL ! The most pathetic is the fact that the ammendment he illegaly added to our By-Laws ..LOL!(excuse me.. ROTFLMOL!!!!!!)
The illegal ammendment that Chris Needels added to Our By-Laws to allow voting by proxy... Didn't! ROTFLMOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$7000 of proxies ,
To catch the Executive Director of USPA Illegaly ammending Our by-Laws,
Priceless!

"Treetop"

[Cloudseeder 0]

All the legislative effort USPA puts forth, and development of the instructional programs, costs money. USPA can pass 100 percent of that cost along to you and I as individual members, or they can charge a percentage to us, and a percentage to the profit making dropzones that also derive a benefit.

I like the idea of profitable dropzones footing part of the bill for USPA services. I think they should pay for those services out of their business income

Mr Buchanan,
Who do you think pays the current GMDZO dues?

It is the customer .
When a business looks at their business plan for the upcoming year they look at planned expenses and expected revenues.
They take this data and determine how much planned profit they will realize.
They then adjust their retail prices to ensure that they will make at least the expected profit.
If there is an expected expense of $400 for the GM program that money isn't coming out of the end year bottom line.
That $400 is is coming out of the customers pockets , pennies at a time.

The Myth of the GM program is that GMs pay any dues.
The fact is that GMs only *collect* dues and pass it on to USPA.

"Treetop"

[Cloudseeder 0]

Quote

Let me see if I understand our point of view correctly, because I think you -may- have actually changed my mind a bit on this one.

What you're saying is that by holding an AFF cert course at your non-GM DZ it doesn't take any business away from a GM DZ. If that is, in fact, the case, then I agree with you. It should probably be allowed without any further cost.

Mr Quade ,
If you'll refer to the Summer 2000 BOD minutes you'll see that the BOD had declared that non-GM DZs could hold a course but that GM DZs would have a priority in holding courses.
At the Winter 2001 BOD meeting that was changed to any non GM DZ would pay a fee equal to , bla blka blao, basically the highest GM fee ($400)
I don't remember the exact fee at the time.
For every course held!!!!
At this point it's if a non member Dz had two courses they'd pay twice as much as the highest GM fee. If they held three they'd pay triple the normal GM fee.

I , yes yours truly, attended the summer 2001 meting and negotiated a temporary compromise.
A stop gap measure ,if you will.
If you 'll reference those meeting minutes you will see that compromise as a passed motion.

"Treetop"

• Quote

[gravitysurf808 0]

All previous said; I am personally just hoping for a ND INCUMBENT v.s. ND CHALLENGER recount drama.

...hmm... yeah that's it!! Maybe from somewhere down in the SouthEast Region.

...maybe even from, oh i don't know....Florida?? hmmm??

Damn those ballot butterflies!!!