Direct response from a former DEMA Board Member to earlier statements.
This letter was received at 4 pm PST Thursday from former DEMA Board Member Carl Vincenti.
As a retailer I was very interested to read Ms. Long’s comment on the memo that was supplied to the diving industry on October 25, by DEMA Executive Director Tom Ingram.
I applaud Ms. Long for taking the time to volunteer to serve on DEMA’s Board from 2006 to 2008. Anyone who puts the kind of effort in that is typically required of these hard working volunteers to keep all five diving stakeholders headed in the same direction should receive similar accolades. Those that put effort into their volunteerism, once on the Board, find that members want them to serve for multiple terms. I note that Ms. Long served for one term, and that she did not run for a second term.
With reference to the DEMA organization, Ms. Long writes that it is, “unfortunate that through many years of doing things one way, it is virtually impossible to even talk about doing them any other way.” I can recall a time when the DEMA organization did some things in ways that landed it in legal battles, negative net income, and even a Federal Trade Commission investigation. It seems to me that operating DEMA that way, as it was years ago, is not in the best interest of the industry. I note that in the last 5 or 6 years, DEMA has operated like a trade association; a non-profit corporation with a responsible business-savvy staff and (mostly) responsible Board of Directors. We may not all agree with every program (not agreeing is not unusual in the diving industry), but it is pretty hard to dispute the fact that there is more DEMA-based promotion of diving taking place now than ever before. And it is backed by data that is intuitive, quantitative, and strategic and does diving proud. That’s just my opinion on that “proud” comment.
These days, instead of giving away Jeeps to current divers as a promotion, DEMA is involved in productive activities; the Be A Diver campaign, co-op advertising, and yes, even a Delta Airlines Destination video that promoted diving. On the subject of that Delta Airlines on-the-plane video, DEMA managed to turn a Cayman Islands promotion with a hotel, a manufacturer and a couple of training organizations into an industry-wide promotion that steered potential customers to the Be A Diver website. Incidentally, those training organizations and the manufacturer should be thanked for supplying the additional funds that made the video possible. Those of you that appear on that list of contacted companies from the video production company, and who didn’t take advantage of the promotion, are, in my opinion, jealous that you made a wrong decision. And still, DEMA got your back by turning the whole thing around and promoting Be A Diver, where you all have retail stores listed. As a retailer, I have to ask myself, “Who promoted me on this occasion? Was it DEMA and Be A Diver? Or was it a non-participating training organization (or manufacturer or destination, etc, etc) that was asked, but turned it down?” I know my own answer.
I digress; back to Ms. Long’s letter. Ms. Long asks whether or not the Executive Director of DEMA is paying attention, ‘…to YOU – the due paying members of the very organization he is paid to manage. Does he say, “Wow – there are a lot of people who are not happy. Let’s talk about this. No, he tells you that you are wrong and DEMA is right.’
Actually Mr. Ingram NEVER says the members are wrong and DEMA is right. What he does do is present the facts to the entire industry instead of the lies and half-truths that are being spread. I won’t point the finger at anyone person and call them a liar. Like Mr. Ingram, I prefer to let the truth speak for itself. I invite all to look at the forums and postings that are being used to spread the lies and half-truths. Most of you in the diving industry are intelligent enough to see through them, just like I am.
And while you contend that the proper response to concerns about the bylaws change should be to say, “…there are a lot of people who are not happy. Let’s talk about this…,” please allow me to remind everyone that the majority of DEMA members recognized the inequity in the bylaws, and voted by legal majority to change them, making it possible for all to have an equal opportunity to serve. “Majority” includes majority of member companies AND majority of votes among those companies.
I agree with Ms. Long that all should view the DEMA letter. Compare it to the various postings and forums, and see which one makes sense for you: http://dema.org/associations/1017/files/2009-10-25-BylawsAmendmentMemo-OnlineFormat-Final.pdf
I contend that no one should be applauding the resignation of DEMA President Al Hornsby, except those that are unable to face the facts. Again, the facts are that the DEMA membership voted for a change in the DEMA bylaws which now allow smaller companies, and one-person operations to be NOMINATED AS A VOLUNTEER! See that word, “Volunteer?” See that word, “Nominated?” Not ELECTED for life (please, why would ANYONE in their right mind put up with this stuff for life?). The DEMA membership still gets to elect (or not elect) one of the nominated volunteers as part of the election process.
On the comment made in your letter regarding “Infighting,” I am sorry, but in my opinion, that’s just a smokescreen. You claim to want the “betterment of the industry.” Well, I don’t think any of the DEMA Board members want anything different than that. I remain curious as to how reinstating term limits as described in the circulating petition has anything to do with “betterment of the industry.” And since ignoring the bylaws amendment vote is a slap in the face to those members who actually understood the amendment and voted for it, is the betterment of the industry accomplished by an attitude of, “damn the membership’s legitimate vote, and the rights of the retailer to be nominated?” I personally don’t think so.
Another issue raised is the concept of one vote, one company. Such a scheme is a great way to lose the support of the large companies that are currently supporting smaller DEMA member companies by contributing more to the revenue stream, used to promote diving. Trade associations routinely use a system of votes and dues exactly like that used by DEMA, except they typically REQUIRE members to submit audited financial statements to verify their revenue and their corresponding dues. But since there is no requirement for larger organizations to participate with DEMA at all, I suspect a one-company, one-vote system would encourage those larger companies to keep their dues money, and use it for purposes that provide a direct impact on their own company. Darwinism – the principle of survival of the fittest - is another way to change the industry. With industry-wide promotional monies no longer available, I wonder how quickly the number of retail stores in existence would fall?
Frankly, I prefer the DEMA membership vote and dues structure the way it is, receiving promotional help from companies that are willing to put effort and personnel in, as well as funds, for the betterment of all in the industry. Good luck if you decide to have one vote for each company.
Ms. Long, you are absolutely correct when you suggest that transparency and inclusiveness are needed. The transparency needed was delivered by Mr. Ingram’s memo to the interested industry parties. I note that none of those facts were refuted in your letter, which merely attacked Mr. Ingram for doing the job of eliminating the misinformation promoted on these forums and on the website and petition you are promoting.
Inclusiveness is very critical, and the fact that the DEMA bylaws amendment, which appears to be so much the center of discussion, allows for more choice for DEMA members among Board candidates, and allows for smaller businesses to participate on the Board in a manner similar to participation by larger businesses, makes for a much more inclusive approach. It certainly seems better than telling willing, qualified and duly elected volunteer Board members to step down for some unknown or paranoid reason.
I have looked at the website and the promotion of another organization by Mr. Long, and frankly, I am not sure what alternative to DEMA is being offered. Certainly it cannot be the alternative of a competing organization to DEMA, dividing already limited industry resources. It cannot be that a failed, 20+ year-old organization like SDRG is suddenly resuscitated for the “good of the industry.” It must be something else. Perhaps instead of attacking the transparency of the DEMA organization you could be more transparent as to your purposes for the information of the entire industry, just as DEMA does. As a DEMA member myself, I happen to know that all of their information is out in the open for members. Let intelligent people make their own decisions. If that means SDRG provides a better alternative (which I personally cannot imagine), then so be it.
I echo your question Ms. Long. What role are we all willing to play? Is it divisive and vague, or is it transparent and factual? We the industry are interested in your answer. -- Carl Vincenti, Honolulu, Hawaii.
This letter was received at 4 pm PST Thursday from former DEMA Board Member Carl Vincenti.
As a retailer I was very interested to read Ms. Long’s comment on the memo that was supplied to the diving industry on October 25, by DEMA Executive Director Tom Ingram.
I applaud Ms. Long for taking the time to volunteer to serve on DEMA’s Board from 2006 to 2008. Anyone who puts the kind of effort in that is typically required of these hard working volunteers to keep all five diving stakeholders headed in the same direction should receive similar accolades. Those that put effort into their volunteerism, once on the Board, find that members want them to serve for multiple terms. I note that Ms. Long served for one term, and that she did not run for a second term.
With reference to the DEMA organization, Ms. Long writes that it is, “unfortunate that through many years of doing things one way, it is virtually impossible to even talk about doing them any other way.” I can recall a time when the DEMA organization did some things in ways that landed it in legal battles, negative net income, and even a Federal Trade Commission investigation. It seems to me that operating DEMA that way, as it was years ago, is not in the best interest of the industry. I note that in the last 5 or 6 years, DEMA has operated like a trade association; a non-profit corporation with a responsible business-savvy staff and (mostly) responsible Board of Directors. We may not all agree with every program (not agreeing is not unusual in the diving industry), but it is pretty hard to dispute the fact that there is more DEMA-based promotion of diving taking place now than ever before. And it is backed by data that is intuitive, quantitative, and strategic and does diving proud. That’s just my opinion on that “proud” comment.
These days, instead of giving away Jeeps to current divers as a promotion, DEMA is involved in productive activities; the Be A Diver campaign, co-op advertising, and yes, even a Delta Airlines Destination video that promoted diving. On the subject of that Delta Airlines on-the-plane video, DEMA managed to turn a Cayman Islands promotion with a hotel, a manufacturer and a couple of training organizations into an industry-wide promotion that steered potential customers to the Be A Diver website. Incidentally, those training organizations and the manufacturer should be thanked for supplying the additional funds that made the video possible. Those of you that appear on that list of contacted companies from the video production company, and who didn’t take advantage of the promotion, are, in my opinion, jealous that you made a wrong decision. And still, DEMA got your back by turning the whole thing around and promoting Be A Diver, where you all have retail stores listed. As a retailer, I have to ask myself, “Who promoted me on this occasion? Was it DEMA and Be A Diver? Or was it a non-participating training organization (or manufacturer or destination, etc, etc) that was asked, but turned it down?” I know my own answer.
I digress; back to Ms. Long’s letter. Ms. Long asks whether or not the Executive Director of DEMA is paying attention, ‘…to YOU – the due paying members of the very organization he is paid to manage. Does he say, “Wow – there are a lot of people who are not happy. Let’s talk about this. No, he tells you that you are wrong and DEMA is right.’
Actually Mr. Ingram NEVER says the members are wrong and DEMA is right. What he does do is present the facts to the entire industry instead of the lies and half-truths that are being spread. I won’t point the finger at anyone person and call them a liar. Like Mr. Ingram, I prefer to let the truth speak for itself. I invite all to look at the forums and postings that are being used to spread the lies and half-truths. Most of you in the diving industry are intelligent enough to see through them, just like I am.
And while you contend that the proper response to concerns about the bylaws change should be to say, “…there are a lot of people who are not happy. Let’s talk about this…,” please allow me to remind everyone that the majority of DEMA members recognized the inequity in the bylaws, and voted by legal majority to change them, making it possible for all to have an equal opportunity to serve. “Majority” includes majority of member companies AND majority of votes among those companies.
I agree with Ms. Long that all should view the DEMA letter. Compare it to the various postings and forums, and see which one makes sense for you: http://dema.org/associations/1017/files/2009-10-25-BylawsAmendmentMemo-OnlineFormat-Final.pdf
I contend that no one should be applauding the resignation of DEMA President Al Hornsby, except those that are unable to face the facts. Again, the facts are that the DEMA membership voted for a change in the DEMA bylaws which now allow smaller companies, and one-person operations to be NOMINATED AS A VOLUNTEER! See that word, “Volunteer?” See that word, “Nominated?” Not ELECTED for life (please, why would ANYONE in their right mind put up with this stuff for life?). The DEMA membership still gets to elect (or not elect) one of the nominated volunteers as part of the election process.
On the comment made in your letter regarding “Infighting,” I am sorry, but in my opinion, that’s just a smokescreen. You claim to want the “betterment of the industry.” Well, I don’t think any of the DEMA Board members want anything different than that. I remain curious as to how reinstating term limits as described in the circulating petition has anything to do with “betterment of the industry.” And since ignoring the bylaws amendment vote is a slap in the face to those members who actually understood the amendment and voted for it, is the betterment of the industry accomplished by an attitude of, “damn the membership’s legitimate vote, and the rights of the retailer to be nominated?” I personally don’t think so.
Another issue raised is the concept of one vote, one company. Such a scheme is a great way to lose the support of the large companies that are currently supporting smaller DEMA member companies by contributing more to the revenue stream, used to promote diving. Trade associations routinely use a system of votes and dues exactly like that used by DEMA, except they typically REQUIRE members to submit audited financial statements to verify their revenue and their corresponding dues. But since there is no requirement for larger organizations to participate with DEMA at all, I suspect a one-company, one-vote system would encourage those larger companies to keep their dues money, and use it for purposes that provide a direct impact on their own company. Darwinism – the principle of survival of the fittest - is another way to change the industry. With industry-wide promotional monies no longer available, I wonder how quickly the number of retail stores in existence would fall?
Frankly, I prefer the DEMA membership vote and dues structure the way it is, receiving promotional help from companies that are willing to put effort and personnel in, as well as funds, for the betterment of all in the industry. Good luck if you decide to have one vote for each company.
Ms. Long, you are absolutely correct when you suggest that transparency and inclusiveness are needed. The transparency needed was delivered by Mr. Ingram’s memo to the interested industry parties. I note that none of those facts were refuted in your letter, which merely attacked Mr. Ingram for doing the job of eliminating the misinformation promoted on these forums and on the website and petition you are promoting.
Inclusiveness is very critical, and the fact that the DEMA bylaws amendment, which appears to be so much the center of discussion, allows for more choice for DEMA members among Board candidates, and allows for smaller businesses to participate on the Board in a manner similar to participation by larger businesses, makes for a much more inclusive approach. It certainly seems better than telling willing, qualified and duly elected volunteer Board members to step down for some unknown or paranoid reason.
I have looked at the website and the promotion of another organization by Mr. Long, and frankly, I am not sure what alternative to DEMA is being offered. Certainly it cannot be the alternative of a competing organization to DEMA, dividing already limited industry resources. It cannot be that a failed, 20+ year-old organization like SDRG is suddenly resuscitated for the “good of the industry.” It must be something else. Perhaps instead of attacking the transparency of the DEMA organization you could be more transparent as to your purposes for the information of the entire industry, just as DEMA does. As a DEMA member myself, I happen to know that all of their information is out in the open for members. Let intelligent people make their own decisions. If that means SDRG provides a better alternative (which I personally cannot imagine), then so be it.
I echo your question Ms. Long. What role are we all willing to play? Is it divisive and vague, or is it transparent and factual? We the industry are interested in your answer. -- Carl Vincenti, Honolulu, Hawaii.
