Al Hornsby Resigns

[The Chairman]

Wow dude!

That smacks of protectionism, except for #3. I am underwhelmed with your proposals and here is why:

1) I oppose this as an intrusion against free market principles. No one has the right to stop me from teaching.
2) Again, telling me I have to do things YOUR way or the highway? I am quite happy with the status quo.
3) MAP and MARP need to go. They fly in the face of a free market.
4) Again, you are trying to tell peeps how to run their business. The Free Market does a better job.
5) Nothing but price fixing here. There is no need to set a minimum OR a maximum. That's the job of the economy.
6) Manufacturers will live or die by how they do business. Let the economy sort them out.

 

[Darcy Kieran]

Lots of animated debate on many topics.

What I find interesting is... Views and opinions on how to get the industry on a growth path are from one extreme to the next. From black to white. So... We sure can't expect DEMA to please everybody... It's a mathematical impossibility!

 

[Goindrinkn]

Here are the answers to fixing the Industry... from all fronts:
1. Require all Instructors who are within an RSTC agency to be shop affiliated. No more independent Instructors.
2. Bring minimum standards back to certifying to the recreational limit of 130 ft for open water and require those standards be met. Damn the lawyers and Insurance industry and the agency leaders who adopted 60ft for the sake of saving money on one end while making it on the other.

IMHO, These two points seem to be counter intuitive.

With the standards being what they are, and with the invent of zero to hero type programs, it's often the younger guys who instruct for the LDSs. They also often work at the shop for little money. (not knocking it, just pointing it out) The opportunity to teach a class puts additional money in their pocket, that they need to live on. He's bound by the shops schedule and the fact that they are in business to make money. This results in "Get Certified NOW! / in a weekend... The independent instructor however is often someone that has more of a passion for diving, works an often professional 9-5 and teaches because they enjoy it. The ability to charge a higher rate for personalized instruction and a more flexible schedule would be taken away. And wouldn't you pay more for better instruction?

If we put the dollar in front of training, as has happened locally, give classes away in the hope that students will by product and let them dive to 130, we probably won't see them again accept maybe in the accidents and incidents forum. They walk out thinking they are capable divers. At least with an imposed 60 foot limit, there's a chance to say look there's this really great site, but you need to be more than a beginner, how about so AOW training... This gets the diver training, making diving safer and more enjoyable, and gets the instructors and LDS money. If the number thrown around is that less than 10% of divers go on beyond OW, then I believe that moving the depth from 60 to 130 would drop that even more - and how would that be good for the industry?

I apologize if by saying "bringing the standards back to 130" you meant better and more substantial training and not just allowing them to go deeper...

Just my .02

 

[cool_hardware52]

So...... Al Hornsby has resigned.

Will that change anything, for better or worse?

Will the actual decision making process and day to day operation of DEMA change if all the current BOD resigned?

It seems that an examination of exactly how one becomes a BOD member, from nomination to election, would be helpful in understanding the role of the BOD.

Tobin

 

[The Chairman]

It seems that an examination of exactly how one becomes a BOD member, from nomination to election, would be helpful in understanding the role of the BOD.

Tobin

I actually asked this question, Tobin. Here was the response:

The nominations process for the Board is outlined in the Bylaws, but the basics are:

(a) The nomination of candidates for membership on the Board of Directors shall be made by the Nominating Committee or by written petition.

(b) The Nominating Committee shall comprise five (5) members with one representative from each of the five Class A Divisions. The members of the Nominating Committee may be members of the Board of Directors but no Director standing for election may serve on the Committee. The Nominating Committee shall be nominated by the President and approved by the Board of Directors at the first meeting of the Board of Directors after the annual election of Directors. Members of the Nominating Committee will serve for one year or until their successors have been selected and installed.

(c) The Nominating Committee shall operate under such procedures as are adopted from time-to-time by the Board of Directors. The Nominating Committee will submit a slate of candidates to the Board of Directors which may accept or change the slate of nominees and shall present the slate of nominees to the Membership of the Association not less than ninety (90) days prior to the date of the election which shall be December 15 or such other date selected by the Board of Directors from time to time.

(d) The number of candidates recommended by the Nominating Committee shall be greater than the number of Director seats for each Division to be filled in the particular election.

(e) Additional nominations for the Board of Directors shall be included in the final slate of nominees when proposed by a signed petition of Members holding two percent (2%) or more of the voting power of the Association or by at least ten (10) Regular Members, whichever is less. Such nominations must be presented in writing to the Secretary of the Association no less than sixty (60) days prior to the election.

(f) The Directors shall be elected to the Board of Directors by the Regular Members of the Association. The Secretary shall prepare an official ballot listing the names of the nominees and shall provide the ballots to the Regular Members and conduct an election of Directors at a meeting of the Regular Members called for the purpose of electing the members of the Board of Directors, by ballot or by proxy or by letter ballot at the discretion of the Board of Directors.

(g) The candidate receiving the most votes for the particular Director seat for which such person is nominated shall be elected Director for the Board Seat. When two or more Director seats are subject to election within a Division or at large, the top two or more candidates receiving the most votes for the particular division or at large Director seat shall be elected. When the term of one seat is longer than the other seat within a Division, the candidate(s) with the most votes shall be elected for the Director seat(s) with longer term(s). In the event of a tie in the election of a Director, the current Board of Directors then sitting shall select the Director from amongst those candidates who have tied for such Board seat.

 

[cool_hardware52]

I actually asked this question, Tobin. Here was the response:

The nominations process for the Board is outlined in the Bylaws, but the basics are:

(a) The nomination of candidates for membership on the Board of Directors shall be made by the Nominating Committee or by written petition.

Are those of us seeking change signing the wrong petition?

(b) The Nominating Committee shall be nominated by the President and approved by the Board of Directors

The circular nature of this makes my head spin.

Tobin

 

[The Chairman]

Are those of us seeking change signing the wrong petition?



The circular nature of this makes my head spin.

Tobin

This was what I was tryin' to 'splain to you last night! The BOD is stacked in favor of the status quo by design!

While I am NOT asking for the BOD to resign, and would love for Al to reconsider, I do think we need to revamp HOW we select the BOD and change to whom they are beholden to.

 

[Jim Lapenta]

IMHO, These two points seem to be counter intuitive.

With the standards being what they are, and with the invent of zero to hero type programs, it's often the younger guys who instruct for the LDSs. They also often work at the shop for little money. (not knocking it, just pointing it out) The opportunity to teach a class puts additional money in their pocket, that they need to live on. He's bound by the shops schedule and the fact that they are in business to make money. This results in "Get Certified NOW! / in a weekend... The independent instructor however is often someone that has more of a passion for diving, works an often professional 9-5 and teaches because they enjoy it. The ability to charge a higher rate for personalized instruction and a more flexible schedule would be taken away. And wouldn't you pay more for better instruction?

If we put the dollar in front of training, as has happened locally, give classes away in the hope that students will by product and let them dive to 130, we probably won't see them again accept maybe in the accidents and incidents forum. They walk out thinking they are capable divers. At least with an imposed 60 foot limit, there's a chance to say look there's this really great site, but you need to be more than a beginner, how about so AOW training... This gets the diver training, making diving safer and more enjoyable, and gets the instructors and LDS money. If the number thrown around is that less than 10% of divers go on beyond OW, then I believe that moving the depth from 60 to 130 would drop that even more - and how would that be good for the industry?

I apologize if by saying "bringing the standards back to 130" you meant better and more substantial training and not just allowing them to go deeper...

Just my .02

I agree with this as well. The reason I get the students I do is because I'm an independent and free to recommend to my students the shops, manufacturers, and operations that will best serve them. In fact my agency's standards require it. I get students who don't want high pressure sales pitches and the latest gadgets. They want the best training they can get for their money and as a result the shop whose pool I use sees these people 8 weeks in a row, he treats them fairly, and he gets their business. If anything no instructor should be tied to one shop unless he/she owns it! We have 6 instructors from 3 different agencies and none of them are actual shop employees. Each teaches their class the way the are required to and sees fit. The owner actually told an agency to get out because of the hassles they were giving him over instructors from other agencies, other agencies materials on display, not selling enough materials, etc. There is one of that agency's instructors who teaches here from time to time but he gets his own materials from the school he went to for his IDC and IT. At three levels better pricing than the shop could get.

This actually works better. People have a choice of training programs, the instructors do not have to carry huge rental gear stocks, they do not sell gear so the shop gets the business there. If a shop with a pool would say to every local independent instructor " Hey come use my pool and my pool gear, I'll charge you a token amount for use of the pool and in return you refer your students to me for equipment." NOw if the shop is fair with prices and has a good selection he will get a boatload of business. If he's overpriced and a dick he'll get squat.

Why did I say this in this thread? Because if DEMA would actually start to promote this type of model or at least encourage it everyone would win. Students would see that there are other training methods out there. Some more comprehensive than others and some that can be done in less time. But they would be INFORMED. The shop owner would not have to concentrate so much on teaching because he'd be too busy selling gear to all the new potential students brought in by all those instructors. There are a few smaller one man shops around here. But they can soon get overwhelmed if they have 3 or more classes going at the same time. This is where students get shafted. Now at some point they will get a few DM's, an AI or two, and maybe an instructor. And this is where the problems start. Because they feel this mistaken need to restrict the new instructor as to who, when, how, and how much they will make for teaching. If the instructor goes out on their own then the bad blood from competition starts. So in the end a shop with instructors who can only teach for the agency it supports loses out. As do the students. And we must not lose sight of the fact that whatever the industry does in order for it to survive it MUST serve the new students and current divers it has. If it does not it will die.

 

[Gombessa]

3) MAP and MARP need to go. They fly in the face of a free market.
4) Again, you are trying to tell peeps how to run their business. The Free Market does a better job.
5) Nothing but price fixing here. There is no need to set a minimum OR a maximum. That's the job of the economy.

Interestingly, MAP and MARP are the products of a free market. If the market doesn't like them, both MAP and MARP will disappear of their own accord, to be replaced by more favorable options. Government intervention "on behalf of retailers" to end MAP and MARP is actually disrupting the free market by dictating what goods can and cannot be sold for. After all, retailers and manufacturers enter freely into contractual agreements to adhere to MAP and MARP, without any intervention from the government.

 

[Leadking]

When I was distributing steel tanks I had a MARP. Why? Because we did not feel that price should be the only consideration when purchasing. The dealer could sell them at any price he wanted, hell, he could give them away.
He just could not advertise below our MARP.
People who shop the net for price only are not supporting the sport. Without retail outlets who teach and support the product the downward spiral will worsen.

All that said, years ago I wanted a Nikonis camera. I went to the local camera shop and they had one on the self. The salesman presented it to me and I asked what he could tell me about shooting pictures underwater. "Nothing" was the reply. I went home and looked in the back of Skin Diver Magazine and ordered one at much lower price. I wanted to do business locally but was not getting any value added.

My 2 cents.