13 thoughts on “National Ski Patrol: In-fighting Begins Anew”

1. Phil, I’m also one of the authors with Mark.

   It’s also noteworthy that the skiing (i.e. riding, tele etc…) bar is to the local standard (emphasis on “local”) and is not the same as the official S&T standard. In other words, the local patrol defines the local skiing standard in the same way they do now. Obviously, a patroller at Jackson Hole would have a different requirement than one from an area that is a ski area/golf course combination. The issue is the ability to get to the incident, render medical care, and then facilitate a rescue. “Getting there” is the core concept. It doesn’t have to be pretty and it doesn’t have to be complicated.

   Furthermore, the requirement is to meet that local standard only at some point in that patroller’s career. It’s not a high bar.

   This all stems from one of the principle purposes of the NSP as defined in the bylaws, the incorporation documents and the policies and procedures (ratified annually since the beginning of the NSP) of patrols being “composed of competent skiers trained in the administration of first aid.” Being skiing medics is the core competency of the NSP and what differentiates an NSP patroller from others who can just ski or others who have just medical first responder training. The linkage of skiing and first aid is what defines ski patrolling and is the strategic advantage (and market space) of the NSP.

2. Phil, As I noted as one of the authors of this specific ballot question, the answer is zero (0) members will be affected. There is a lot of misinformation circulating out there trying to get everyone riled up about this, claiming that it would take away the right to vote of injured patrollers and former auxiliaries. None of that is true. Every NSP member that is serving today, or is an alumni member, would not see their voting status change. Thanks for asking the question…

   1. Mark, The bottom line to this dispute is that litigation is a very serious step to take and it appears that cooler heads could, and still should, resolve this issue absent a lawsuit.

      Phil Edholm

      1. Phil, Yes, I completely agree. I’m not a party to the litigation, so I don’t know all the details on that. You can see from Wally Shank’s quote in the article how he agonized over it. I met him for the first time at the Board meeting in June, and he’s one of the most intelligent, articulate and experienced patrollers – and business people – that I’ve met. The NSP is fortunate to have him on its team, even if we don’t agree on all issues. If he says it was necessary, I expect it was.

      2. Phil
         This litigation appears to be more over checks and balances and members being able to due something about board members who refuse to follow the bylaws, National Charter and Colorado law. From what I can see there is five board members who are trying there hardest to perform there fiduciary duty’s and another group that have been perusing there own agenda in a manner that is violating the law. Litigation is a very serious step and the five board members who filed it were left with no other options to perform there fiduciary duty. As of the last board meeting most of the remainder of the board was refusing to have a meeting over the issues forcing the matter to the courts. Instead of criticizing the five board members who are doing the work of the organization the Membership should be putting them in for the Minnie Dole award.

3. Mark, The success of any organization can be attributed to the talents and contributions of its members. Some of the best patrollers I’ve ever had the pleasure of being associated with were not proficient skiers and eventually served their volunteer time as first aid room attendants. How about the spouses of dedicated patrollers who become OEC technicians to support their husband or wife and serve in first aid rooms. These folks are as much a part of the NSP as any skiing or riding patroller. Their full membership matters.

   It would be interesting to see statistics on the number of non-skiing NSP members this proposal would impact.

   Phil Edholm

4. @Phil – I’m one of the group of 6 patrollers that submitted the 5 member vote proposals back in May. Our objective is to have them presented to members this fall. I also presented these in Denver at the Summer Member Meeting/Board session to the Board, Division Directors and Members present.

   The short answer to your question is that the NSP’s 25,000 or so members that vote today will retain that right whether or not this passes. In the future, new NSP members will receive their right to vote as soon as they pass OEC and demonstrate competence to ski or board to an incident scene to the local mountain standard, whatever that is.

   We believe it is reasonable for the members that decide on the future of the NSP should have been a ski patroller at some point in their NSP service. This appears to be supported in every governing document since the NSP’s inception. It likely never occurred to anyone that we would even be having this discussion. We value the contributions of others that have never skied and have no intention to learn. They are encouraged to become NSP Assiciates, with the full complement of other rights, but not the right to vote. We think the majority of NSP members will agree that we must always remain focused on “skier” safety (including boarding, Nordic, telemark, etc., of course), and this helps preserve that mission.

   We estimate that there are, at most, a few hundred individuals in the US today that would fall into the category of members that have never skied to a local mountain standard. But even members of this group would retain their right to vote and all other Traditional Member privileges. They will likely be called OEC Technicians and not Patrollers at some point, but I suspect they thought it was strange to be called a Patroller anyway. Hope this (and the specific language below) helps address your question.

   Here is the proposed ballot language as it stands today (which includes the note below it):

   Proposal 5: MEMBER VOTING
   Amendment to Article II – Section 2.2

   Consistent with the NSP’s Federal Charter and Articles of Incorporation, voting rights shall be given only to NSP Members in good standing that currently demonstrate, or at one time in their NSP service demonstrated, dual competence to ski or snowboard to an incident scene and provide first aid consistent with their local patrol and NSP National standards.

   Note: All NSP Traditional Members on Month, Day, 2012 that maintain their membership status in good standing without interruption, shall retain their future Traditional Member status and right to vote. This bylaw amendment will become effective ten (10) months from the date of adoption by this Member vote, allowing the NSP National organization, Divisions, Regions, local patrols and members adequate time to fully implement this change in an efficient, effective and appropriate manner.

5. Thank you, Larry Bost, for your overview and response to the lawsuit. Sorry to see that Board Member differences have resulted in litigation.

   I’m trying to drill down to the root issue. Is there a proposal to limit voting rights to just “skiing” Patrollers?

   Phil Edholm
   Augusy 28, 2012

6. Thank you for making the correction. Some of those previous Board members are great people and great patrollers with many years of service to NSP.

   Please don’t assume my comments reflect anyone’s opinion other than my own. We have a very strong group of individuals on the Board today capable of speaking for themselves. I just happened to have been there during those early battles and I think the only one actually “fired” because of my position on member’s rights and my support of the work being done by the “Patroller Committee.”

   Keep up the good work! You have a great site and the articles are great reading.

   Larry Bost

7. @Larry Bost: I can see from some of your main points you are referring to the version of the post initially published. As you can see with the update stamp, we made a few additions on August 17th to the initial piece posted. A former NSP Board member offered a comment previously that pointed out that not everyone involved in the previous litigation would agree with the characterization that the previous Board members were fired, as you say, based on differing interpretations of what the word fired actually means. So that was changed and reads pretty much as you state it in your comment. We will leave it to NSP members to respond to any of your other opinions, if they so choose. Thank you for offering your perspective, and we assume, the opinion of the majority of the NSP Board on which you serve.

8. I would like to respond to an August 15th posting on your website, “National Ski Patrol: In-fighting Begins Anew”. There is a lot of misinformation being communicated to NSP members by various parties and I would like convey something different to the membership…The facts.

   It’s interesting to note that articles such as this always seem to find a way not to be “fair and balanced” to coin a phrase. Information gathered from sources from only one side of an argument usually tends to be statements of opinion that support a predetermined agenda regardless of actual facts. Too often they are self-serving and in many cases not totally accurate. Such information may be similar to a stepping stone that is clean, appealing, and functional on the top surface, but when turned over to be examined more closely, the dirt, mud and imperfections are revealed.

   It is correct that in 2005 several members of the National Ski Patrol filed a suit against the National Ski Patrol System, Incorporated. There was a settlement reached in that case that addressed term limits for Board members. As a follow up matter to the settlement the process of re-writing the By-Laws of the National began, a process that was long overdue. To my knowledge, no one was fired as stated in the blog, but several members of the Board did choose to leave the Board after the settlement was finalized. Other members of that Board continued serving until they either termed out or were not re-elected. Even in this prior litigation, where the issues were very clear and defined, there were still strong differences of opinion within the membership about the necessity of a lawsuit. It was not a pleasant time for anyone. Personal relationships suffered and our organization began to stumble through a rebuilding process that continues even today. How soon we forget.

   With regard to the current issues discussed in this blog:

   Five members of the Board of Directors and a member wanted access to the database that contains personal information on every member of the National Ski Patrol. While I personally think there are important privacy issues with granting a request like this, Colorado Statutes 7-136-101 and 102 and our By-Laws in Section 13.11 provide the member or directors may inspect and copy the records of the corporation at the NSP Office for a proper purpose. The proper purpose is required to be stated by the member or director in the application for inspection and the NSP must be given a reasonable time to comply with the request and analyze the proper purpose. The Colorado statutes provide limitations on the purposes for which the information may be utilized. Further, Colorado Statute 7-136-104 allows the nonprofit corporation permission to make a reasonable charge for costs of labor and material for any copies made.

   In this blog, it is stated that the lawsuit was filed on August 1, 2012. In discussions with a representative of the group asking for this member information, the National Ski Patrol was given a deadline of July 27th to provide the requested information. This information was compiled by the office staff and transferred to a CD which was left with the receptionist for pick up prior to the deadline. It was not picked up on the 26th nor was it picked up on Friday, July 27th the deadline set by the five directors and the member in their request.

   Wednesday, August 1st, the Executive Director of the National Ski Patrol, Mr. Tim White, contacted the representative of the requesting group to ask why the information had not been picked up. At that time, Mr. White offered to mail the CD to the group but was informed that it was too late and the law suit had been filed. Mr. White placed the CD in the mail and the group’s spokesman acknowledged receipt of the information upon delivery by the U. S. Postal Service. It is a fact; the information requested was made available in accordance with Colorado law and the By-laws of the NSP prior to the deadline. This group filed their lawsuit without complying with the Colorado Statute requiring them to pick up the information from the NSP Office and did they even phone to ask if the copy was ready for them. The filing of a lawsuit, which is founded on the premise the NSP refused the request when the NSP had done more than was required and was in full compliance with the request, will now cost the membership of the National Ski Patrol for legal fees and cost staff time to prepare to defend the NSP.

   A quote attributed to Mr. Wally Shank, a current Board member and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit states, “We avoided filing this action for a long time but when it became apparent that NSP would not comply I agreed to pursue legal steps to compel compliance.” It should be noted that at no time did Mr. Shank or any of the other four Board members who initiated this suit ever bring their request or their concerns about non-compliance to the full Board. It would seem that Board members who felt that the NSP was violating a Colorado law, or who felt strongly enough to file a lawsuit against the very Board on which they were elected to serve, would have brought these concerns to the Board. It never happened. I can assure the membership that if it would have come to the Board’s attention that the Board was at risk of violating the law, the issues would have been addressed and corrected immediately. Rather than bringing the concerns to the rest of the Board for a remedy that would cost the membership nothing, the five Board members and one other patroller filed a suit that will now result in expense to everyone. It is also noteworthy that after acknowledging the NSP has complied and the group is in receipt of the information they requested, the attorney for the NSP requested that the lawsuit be dismissed as moot. A dismissal at this point would save the membership and the group of plaintiffs legal fees and expenses. The plaintiffs have refused to dismiss the action.

   Every Board member has the right to place items on our monthly Board agenda and when something as serious as this occurs, every Board member has the obligation and the responsibility to make the entire Board aware of the problem and possible actions. Board Members have something called a fiduciary duty not to harm the NSP or cost it money unnecessarily.

   Currently it appears that a small group of NSP members have begun to post blog entries on internet sites which we believe do not accurately represent the situation. One unsigned blog states that “the current troubles appear to have been building since January 2011 when the Board took significant steps to eliminate transparency”. This comment is false. There is no evidence that can be found that would lend credibility to this statement. Obviously this is someone’s personal opinion and one that would cast doubt upon their knowledge and possible motivation. For those who have been intimately involved with the leadership of our organization since 2005, this statement, which sounds like a “statement of fact”, could not be further from the truth. Every Board meeting is open to all members and those in attendance are permitted to participate if they choose. There are no secret meetings or secret agendas and the information and agenda for each meeting are posted on the web site prior to each meeting. The minutes and audio of our Board meetings are also available. If there are still concerns about the Board’s effort to promote transparency, I would simply ask that you contact any of the Division Directors and ask them for their opinion on all of these issues.

   Our organization is governed by By-Laws that were created by and approved by members. Within these By-Laws, three “Standing Committees” are required. These committees are Planning, Finance and Governance. Each committee is staffed with members of the Board, Division Directors, and members-at-large. All serving members are appointed by the Chair and approved by the entire Board. Each of these committees has a Board approved charter that describes its role and responsibility. Committee meetings are generally open to the membership and participation is encouraged.

   Article XIV of the By-Laws of the National Organization describes how the By-Laws can be changed. First, anyone may submit a request to change the Bylaws. The request is held by the NSP Board of Directors for sixty days to give the Governance Committee and the Bylaws Oversight Sub-committee time to study the change and formulate the best language. The rest of the Bylaws are checked to see if the change will be in conflict with any other section or sections. After reports are received the Board votes on the change and to pass a two-thirds vote of the Board is required. Second, changes to By-Laws that (1) affect the nomination process. (2) Election process, (3) Board term limits or (4) quorum requirements require a vote and approval by the entire membership of the National Organization.

   To conduct our vote each year and if changes to the Bylaws are added to this vote the total cost for this annual vote is approximately $10,000. While this is expensive, the By-Laws are clear about giving the members control over the Board Elections and changes to certain named sections of the Bylaws. The members control the destiny of any change to the Board’s nomination and election process. Because of the expense and the Board’s obligation to be financially responsible, “due diligence” is required before a By-Laws change proposal is taken to the membership or (in appropriate circumstances) adopted by the Board. The process in detail is as follows:

   First, a proposed change is reviewed by the Chair who then assigns the proposal to one of the Standing Committees for review.

   Second, these Standing Committees look at each proposed change and work with the person or group to understand the proposal, its legality, its effect on membership, the cost of implementation, and the impact the change may have on the National Organization. The assigned committee is required to review each proposal in depth and when necessary, to work with the author of the proposal to improve or better define the objectives.

   Third, there is a special sub-committee called the Bylaws Oversight Sub-committee that helps write the language to reflect properly, the change and to check the entire Bylaws document to be sure this change does not conflict with other parts of the bylaws. This sub-committee also reports on the impact the change might have to the organization.

   Finally, all committees are required to report back to the Board with a recommendation. The Board also has a responsibility to review the proposed action, consider the recommendation of the assigned Standing Committee, and by a two-thirds vote approve or disapprove the proposed change. Again, this does not apply to a By-Law change that deals with the Board nomination process, the Board election process, terms or quorum requirements. These proposed changes must go to the membership for consideration as mentioned.

   The beginning of the current legal action was when this small group of members submitted a group of RFA’s to the Board and asked that all of the RFA’s be taken to the membership for a vote. The group asserts that their proposals affect the Board election and nominating process. Therefore, such proposals bypass the Board process and go directly to the members for a vote without work by the committees. We believe this violates the current procedure in our Bylaws and bypasses an important step to be sure our Bylaws remain without conflicts among the parts.

   A careful review of the proposed changes will disclose that they do not fall within the narrowly defined areas requiring a vote by all members in any event. Only the following would require a confirmation vote by the entire membership: (1) affect the nomination process. (2) election process, (3) Board term limits or (4) quorum requirements). That conclusion is not an attempt to deny members knowledge of, or participation in the National Organization. Rather, it reflects that the NSP, like many organizations with thousands of members, is governed by a Board, duly elected by the members and the Board handles the governance. Only certain clearly defined matters must thereafter be submitted to a vote of the full membership. This is simply a matter of efficient and cost effective governance. All of these issues are discussed in open meetings with participation by Board members and Division Directors. All decisions and recommendations are made democratically with a vote by the members of the Committee or Board.

   To those who would say we have lost our strategic direction, I would ask that they consider first that we educate, train and certify patrollers for our industry partners. Look what has been accomplished in a very short period of time. During the past two years NSP has created a new, highly acclaimed OEC text book and a new Avalanche Manual. NSP has also completed an update of program material in every discipline. Our relationship with our industry partners, and most especially NSAA, has never been stronger. The products and services available to our membership from NSP sponsors continue to grow thanks to the hard work of a dedicated staff in Lakewood.

   The National Ski Patrol is stronger than ever. The cooperation between National Organization leadership and Divisional leadership has created a collaborative, cohesive and effective working team. Our membership is more informed because of our “world-class” Ski Patrol Magazine and the electronically delivered “The Sweep.”

   In closing, this blog states that the current debate is “about improving governance procedures.” While ideas coming from various small groups within the NSP are important and must be considered, it is the function of the NSP Board of Directors to govern 28,000 or more members. If the NSP Board believes an idea is a good one that will help the majority, it will pass it. If it is not sure or does not feel the idea is best for the majority it may deny or postpone passage, again for the good of all members. The task is difficult and when a minority begins to bring suits when they do not get their way, the task becomes more than difficult.

   The Board represents 28,000 members and ultimately the decisions we make must be based on what we feel is the “greater good” of the total membership. The Board is committed to following the By-Laws and working together with the Division Directors to build a strong sustainable future for the NSP.

   Larry Bost
   August 23, 2012

   “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

   John F. Kennedy

   1. Larry
      I just Googled “highly acclaimed OEC text book” and ‘highly acclaimed Outdoor Emergency Care textbook” I am coming up empty. I also tried the other coined statement “Award winning Outdoor Emergency Care”, There are lots of NSP references to award winning but cannot seam to find out what awards they were and from who? I don’t know of anyone outside of national who has used the phrase “gold standard” or “award winning” in conjunction with OEC 5. Below is the smoking gun from the publisher.

      . Because your complete satisfaction is important to us, we have included a link to our Customer Service Support Site below. From this site you can review and update your question.

      Subject
      9780135074800 OEC 5th edition

      Discussion Thread
      Response Via Email (Karen) 11/23/2011 09:28 PM
      Dear Robert,

      We have been forwarded your email to Lois Berlowitz. We certainly apologize, but are not going to replace the first edition with the second edition. The reason is that your NSP director requested that we print the first edition, knowing that there were errors in it, because of the time-line the NSP was facing. Statements were posted on the NSP website that an errata would become available. This decision to not replace was not ours and realize that you may not be happy with this decision. Your director has asked that you consult with the NSP directly.

      Please let us know if we may be of further assistance.

      Larry the truth of the matter is the membership is embarrassed by the release of OEC 5

      Larry you make the claim in your 1st post “To my knowledge, no one was fired as stated in the blog, but several members of the Board did choose to leave the Board after the settlement was finalized.”
      Larry you claim in your 2nd post hero status stating, “I just happened to have been there during those early battles and I think the only one actually fired because of my position on member’s rights and my support of the work being done by the Patroller Committee”
      Any thoughts on which one of your statements are true?

      We know from the court documents the information was requested June 29.
      We know the National charter states
      -CITE-
      36 USC CHAPTER 1527 – NATIONAL SKI PATROL SYSTEM,
      INCORPORATED 01/03/2012 (112-90)
      -STATUTE-
      (a) Records. – The corporation shall keep –
      (1) correct and complete records of account;
      (2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and
      (3) at its principal office, a record of the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote.

      (b) Inspection. – A member entitled to vote, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.
      -SOURCE-
      (Pub. L. 105-225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1419.)

      We know the NSP P&P states on page 24

      (a) Records. – The corporation shall keep – (1) correct and complete records of account; (2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and (3) at its principal office, a record of the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote.

      (b) Inspection. – A member entitled to vote, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

      We know the Colorado Status states
      7-136-102. Inspection of corporate records by members.
      (1) A member is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at the nonprofit corporation’s principal office, any of the records of the nonprofit corporation described in section 7-136-101 (5) if the member gives the nonprofit corporation written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy such records.
      (2) Pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, a member is entitled to inspect and copy, during regular business hours at a reasonable location specified by the nonprofit corporation, any of the other records of the nonprofit corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (3) of this section and gives the nonprofit corporation written demand at least five business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy such records.
      June 29 to Aug 1 is a lot more then five business days. Other requests have been sitting for over a year.
      Larry you make the statement,
      “At no time did Mr. Shank or any of the other four Board members who initiated this suit ever bring their request or their concerns about non-compliance to the full Board.”

      The truth is you and others fought Mr. Shank and the other four Board members request to call a special meeting to deal with this matter.

      Larry you make the statement,
      “One unsigned blog states that “the current troubles appear to have been building since January 2011 when the Board took significant steps to eliminate transparency”. This comment is false. There is no evidence that can be found that would lend credibility to this statement.”
      I did not make the statement but I do agree with it so let’s talk about the evidence.
      Let’s talk about NSP installing tracking ability on the NSP web site to track member’s access to certain documents in violation of the posted policy and without notifying members.
      Let’s talk about shutting down the ASK THE BOARD FORUM.
      Let’s talk about censoring the forum.
      Let’s talk about withholding the raw survey data after receiving a legal request under Colorado law from members.
      Let’s talk about attempts by the chair to stop a legal petition to the membership.
      Let’s talk about an MBA ethics.

      Larry your 1st term on the board you worked very hard for the members on OEC 5 and you reached out to members for input. Your 2nd term you started to drop off the radar and shut out members. Why? Now that you are a few short months from terming out why are you becoming the spin doctor?

9. Why did we have to get to this point again?

Comments are closed.