October 13 , 2005
ENews from the Central Division of the NSP
Jim Woodrum
Division Director
Letter to the Central Division Membership,
This is an important message for everyone to read concerning the NSP, our
organization. If you think you don’t need to care about what happens
at
the National level, I would ask you to reconsider that position, for the
future of our organization is at stake. There is a vote that will be
coming to each of us in the near future. When exactly that is I can’t
tell you, but what it is about I will do my best to inform you.
There are always two sides, sometimes more, to every issue. There are
usually “statements of fact”, which sometimes are merely opinion
or
perspective, leaving it up to the individual to decide what they are to
believe or want to believe. That certainly is the case in the issues
facing the membership of the NSP today.
Here are a few facts as best I know them:
- The National Board of Directors went from a group of approximately 24
members made up of the Division Directors (DD’s) and National Board
Representatives (NBR’s) to a Board of 12 plus the National Chairman in
2002. The NBR’s role was eliminated.
- Each year the terms of four or five Board members terms expire on the
national board and an election is held to fill the slots. Board
candidates go through an application process and then a final selection
for the exact number of candidates for the openings that exist. That
final selection is made by a nomination committee that is appointed by the
National Chairman. That committee consists of the chairs of the standing
Board committees, two members at large and the Executive Director.
- We the members, be it right or wrong, vote on the slate. If a member
chooses not to vote, it is counted as a yes vote for the slate. In the
last two elections a total of less than 100 members voted. Therefore
nearly 27,000 members cast a yes vote. Of the entire membership, during
the same two year period, only 40 members applied for the Board position
and of the 40, only 12 completed the paperwork necessary to be considered
by the Nominating Committee.
- In the 2002 change, term limits were held to only two terms for Board
members. In recent action by the Board this was expanded to three terns,
with some additional time so that experienced Board members are available
to be the National Chair and also so there is continuity of leadership.
- Move forward to late last year/earlier this year when a decision was
made to eliminate the words “National Ski Patrol” on the back cross,
due
to low sales and the issue of liability facing the association from one
particular lawsuit in Indiana and the general perceived concern that
patrollers felt they worked for and/or represented the NSP in performing
their duties. Studies were also undertaken and continue today to
determine if through licensing or other arrangements with the Areas that
the cross could be used if the Areas handled the potential liability
aspects for NSP. The Back Cross change brought about a cry for change at
the National level.
- The Central Division listened and reacted at the Spring 05 meeting in
Chicago and developed two written proposals, one concerning elections,
nominations, slate and term limits; the other proposal on mission, values,
and vision of the association. Other divisions also responded by
developing positions and presentations were made by Central, Eastern and
Rocky Mountain Divisions at the National meetings in June 05.
- The National Board then sent all the proposals to the three standing
committees for investigation, research and recommendations with direction
to report back to the board at the Jan 06 meeting.
- The Governance Committee took on the issue of election, term limits,
etc and formed a task force with three DD’s from Central, Southern and
Alaska. It had been working on the issues and bringing forward thoughts
and understanding that would best represent the member and support the
association as a whole. The intent was to develop a well thought out
proposal to change our association’s bylaws and policy and procedures
in a
logical and amicable way as set forth in the bylaw, etc. As you should
note that the NSP Bylaws allow for such an orderly procedure by requiring
that such changes shall be proposed in writing and distributed by any
current means to the Board of Directors 60 days prior to a regular or
special meeting.
- Since the Eastern Division’s proposals were not voted upon immediately
by the Board at the same time Ed Gassman, Rocky Mtn. DD, and Rick Hamlin,
Eastern DD moved forward with a petition electronically signed by members
to immediately change the Article of Incorporation to deal with the same
issues that were being worked on by the Board’s Governance Committee
Task
Force.
- The petition was presented to the Board, which sought an opinion of
legal counsel as to how to proceed. The Board was advised by legal
counsel that such a vote as requested in the Petition would not be proper.
- Four members immediately filed suit in a Colorado Court. While I
have sought a copy of the Complaint from all parties, none has been
provided, so I will share my understanding of the Complaint and
proceedings. The four members sought a Temporary Restraining Order to
stop the upcoming Board election. The Judge entered a Temporary
Restraining Order to that effect.
- Currently there have been ongoing negotiations between counsel for the
Board and counsel for the 4 plaintiffs concerning the process to vote on
the Petition.
I would not be so presumptuous as to tell you what or how to think or how
to vote when the opportunity arises. However, I do ask you to educate
yourself as best you can. To that end, I am providing links to websites
offering a variety of facts, perceptions and positions. They are at the
bottom of the page. Please review what is on these websites, take up the
offers of others to answer questions, ask your patrol representatives
/director, and most important, ask yourself.
Additionally, I have taken the proposals as best I could and showed a side
by side comparison of what the petition is requiring and what was
requested in the CD proposal.
Issue:
- One member one vote
All the Same
- More candidates then openings All the Same
- Nomination committee
DDs for Petition & CD, maybe an alternative is 3 Board members & 3
DDs for
balance
- Term Limits
2 terms for Petition & CD, maybe an alternative is 2 terms in a row, but
for 9 years total
- Where change is located
Petition asks for Articles, CD asks for Policies &Procedures
As you can see from the table above the petition request and that of the
CD are nearly the same. There are two distinct differences:
- The petition requests changes in the Articles of Incorporation vs. the
existing wording in the National Policies &Procedures.
- When we all vote on the petition we will vote on all the issues at one
time vs. having the right to vote on individual changes to each issue.
The reason for including an alternative in this shows the process the
Governance Committee is using to evaluate each and every issue. It will
not be an all or nothing vote as required in the petition vote and it will
be included in an update with changes in the wording that already exists
in the Bylaws/P&P. At the conclusion the National Board will have this
proposal in front of them at the January 06 meeting with the opportunity
to have the membership run a normal election in spring 07.
The fact is that in the near future every one of us will have an
opportunity to vote. If you vote, and I strongly recommend you do, you
need to be well informed. Another factor I will ask you to consider when
you go to vote is how you want issues handled in the future. Do you want
an orderly, studied approach as called for by the Bylaws, etc, or do you
want a lawsuit every time someone does not immediately get their way?
For example maybe there is another group that doesn’t like the DD’s
being
the nomination committee and they choose to use the petition and court
action. It can become a viscous cycle that no one wants. Does it really
belong in the Articles or does it belong in the bylaws and P&P where it
already exists?
Finally, let’s be frank. Even if the vote occurs in the next month it
will
be the Holidays before the vote is counted. If that is the case, and the
Board meets in January06 where they will be making a decision on the
Governance Committees proposals, is it possible that holding off is the
right thing to do at this point in time to see if the Board makes the
right decisions? Is it possible that decisions made in haste and arising
out of litigation may damage and destroy the very organization we are all
members of? Please keep all this in mind when it comes time to vote. A
vote YES for the petition backed changes will be for all the issues as
stated and force the changes in the Articles. A vote NO will allow the
Governance Committee to complete its process and bring the proposal to the
full Board. Whatever you do, by all means vote!
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim R. Woodrum
Central Division Director
We don't want to send you email if you don't wish to receive it. You can opt-out
of receiving future broadcasts by signing into the NSP Member Services website
at http://www.nsp.org/members and editing your member profile.
This message was sent from the NSP web site at http://www.nsp.org.
© Copyright:
National Ski Patrol System, Inc.
133 South Van Gordon Street, Ste 100
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Return to the NSP E-news Archive Page