Dossier: Illegal expulsion by BoD of HPAC... Most exchanges follow.

This page link is http://mt7.ca/exp/lettresexpulsion2016.html

May 22, 2016
Serge Lamarche
P.O. Box 2419
Golden, BC
V0A 1H0

Dear Serge Lamarche:

Re: Disciplinary Action

As you know, it recently came to our attention that you had entered an Advanced Paragliding rating into your record in the database of the Association in August of 2015. You had not earned such a rating, nor did you have the authority to alter anything in it. Our database is the depository of our members' personal information and their hard-earned pilot certifications. A fraudulent entry for personal aggrandizement is unacceptable on any level.

You will recall that we spoke about this on the telephone immediately after the discovery, and that you maintained it had been a "test" (the purpose of which you were not able to explain). You then said that anyway you "deserved" this rating, and that getting ratings from an instructor would be a waste of your time and money.

This was followed by a letter to you of April 7, 2016 [-available upon request-] expressing the seriousness of your action and the loss of trust this caused to the working relationship between the Office and you as a contractor. Also raised were your repeated denigrations of, and accusations against, pilots, including Board members in various communications, and the incompatibility of this behaviour with being a paid contractor for the Association.

Accessing the database to award yourself unearned ratings is a most egregious breach of trust, which I was duty bound to report to the Board of Directors.

At the Annual Board of Directors meeting, which concluded May 15, the Board of Directors made the following determination:

Effective immediately, your membership is suspended and you will be expelled from the Association for one full calendar year starting today. As per SOP 320-3 (http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=405), you have 30 days from the date of this notice to contact HPAC Board members individually to argue your appeal of this decision. Contact information can be found at (http://www.hpac.ca/pub/?pid=22). You may choose whatever form of communication you arrange between yourself and the Board member. At the end of the 30-day period, if the Board determines that your case does not warrant lifting the suspension, the expulsion takes effect until May 22, 2017.

In one year's time you then would be eligible to apply for reinstatement to the Board of Directors through the Executive Director. Please be aware that reinstatement by the Board of Directors is not guaranteed. If reinstatement is granted, the Board may place certain conditions on your reinstatement. The Board has also determined that the continuation of your translation and web services to HPAC is no longer appropriate.

I have appreciated the working relationship that we have had and your prompt completion of work assignments. It is regrettable that it had to end this way.

Yours truly,
Margit Nance
Executive Director
or the Board of Directors, HPAC

=================================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 21:56:39 -0600
Subject: unwarranted expulsion!
To: britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, Alberta@acvl.ca,Saskatchewan@hpac.ca, Manitoba@acvl.ca, Ontario@acvl.ca,Quebec@acvl.ca, Maritimes@acvl.ca, Yukon@acvl.ca, Treasurer@acvl.ca

Hello BoD of HPAC,

this is unbelievable. I have received a letter of expulsion without any proper warning about an issue that is in false and irrelevant. Several statements in the expulsion letter are plain false.

I would like immediate reinstatement of my membership on the ground that your expulsion is wrong in the first place. This is a very serious issue.

1- I entered only minor PG annotation IN THE ONLY PURPOSE OF TESTING THE ACCIDENT FORM i.e. I needed a PG rating to adjust the form to insure the PG ratings were showing properly like the HG ones. I am allowed to paraglide as grandfathered paraglider so I do not need the rating to paraglide. There is no way I would enter a rating or tamper in the ratings with the goal of getting a right I do not have. Your assumption about it is false.

2- My reply to Margit regarding a PG rating was simply a discussion that the grandfathered PG should get a NOVICE rating. If the HPAC is not going to give a PG rating to the grandfathered, I am considering getting one from an instructor. There was nothing urgent. I don't think I would have any issue getting any PG rating.

3- You are not following proper procedure. As stated in SOP 320-3 item 5: Expulsion from the HPAC/ACVL shall be taken as a last measure when other disciplinary measures have been unsuccessful or when the BoD judges that the action(s) in question warrant an expulsion as the most viable option.

Item 6: No vote on the expulsion of an offending Member shall be taken without giving that Member an opportunity to present his/her case to each Director who shall be voting on the resolution for expulsion. The offending Member shall be given 30 calendar days from the day the resolution is proposed to present his/her case. It is the responsibility of the Member to contact the directors, and the discourse may be conducted in a format (email, regular mail, telephone, in person) mutually agreed between the Member and each Director.

How can you explain that an expulsion is warranted?!

I cannot believe the BoD can be so wrong. I know some BoD members hate me for no good reason but this is beyond the pale. I am a good member since 1984 and always have been a positive force for the HPAC/ACVL.

I am expecting a prompt resolution of the matter.

thanks,

Serge.

ps. Je peux envoyer un version française si ça peut être utile.

=================================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 00:37:09 -0600
Subject: Re: unwarranted expulsion!
To: britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, Alberta@acvl.ca, Saskatchewan@hpac.ca, Manitoba@acvl.ca, Ontario@acvl.ca, Quebec@acvl.ca, Maritimes@acvl.ca, Yukon@acvl.ca, Treasurer@acvl.ca

Hello,

Some additions:

about the 2015 august PG rating. I can't recall exactly what the test was but it was about the display of ratings on the website. It certainly had nothing to do with any form of agrandizement, like Margit says. In any case, the rating was removed as it was to be temporary anyway for the tests.

Regarding the denigration. I am sorry it is taken this way but I get my fair share of denigration and more with this immediate suspension and termination. I did the best work possible for so many years for the association but I realise the BoD does not appreciate it. Moreover, I was the target of a few real criminals (list of their crimes available upon request) and tried my darndest to warn the HPAC and other pilots about them. Once again, I realise the BoD appreciate them more than their dedicated worker for over 15 years and supporter since 1984. The most criminal of them now being in charge of this year HG national.

This being said, the suspension and the expulsion is unwarranted, as well as the work termination. It is quite disappointing of the BoD.

thanks,

Serge.

==================================

Bruce Busby
24 mai 2016 à 13:15
À : Serge Lamarche , britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, "Treasurer@ACVL.ca" , "bod@hpac.ca"

Serge,

We the HPAC BoD are in receipt of your letter dated May 22, 2016.

With respect to your self-appointed August 2015 P4 paraglider rating as a test; I think you may want to reconsider this argument. We dispute your claim that you erroneously entered a PG advanced (PG4) rating for yourself for the purpose of testing. You were never authorized to make database changes, never asked to test the Accident report page and never sought permission to do so from the Executive Director or the BoD. You were contracted by the HPAC for translation not testing accident forms.

On a number of occasions in the past several years you have argued that you deserved a PG rating. You even wanted "unrated" added to your membership card in the PG rating location. You said it was because you flew a PG at Golden once per year.

The database purity is the most valuable asset that the HPAC possesses. We rely on the information in that database to communicate with other international sport organizations, government, insurance providers etc. Manipulation of that database risks the integrity of our national association's reputation. Unauthorized manipulations is grounds for immediate expulsion and possibly criminal police investigation!

Here are replies to your points:

1) See the above notes

2) See above, with the additional comment that; you have never had a PG rating. There is no Grandfather clause in the HPAC SOP's. Without a rating, there would be no granting of a 'grandfathered' rating. Leaving your 'test' in place for 9 months until it was discovered does not indicate a 'test'. An HPAC certified (and current) instructor is the only person allowed to grant a rating, the Executive director is the only person that is authorized to make changes to a rating in our database. Included in this is petitioning the Executive director to add skills signoffs to your HG rating.

3) Many of the HPAC SOP's were changed, amended or tuned up at our ADM (concluded May 15, 2016). SOP 320 expulsion was amended to now be immediate and potentially reversible under appeal by the affected person within 30 days following the dated letter of expulsion. The new SOP's are not yet translated and therefore not up of the website for public consumption. When they are, the SOP will support the actions we have presented you with. The motion and vote on the SOP amendments will be included in the minutes report for all HPAC members to see. The motion to amend SOP 320 and result of the motion will reflect the date of the vote, (predating the notice of expulsion sent to you).

*You still have some of the remaining 30 days in which to make your appeal to the BoD

I suggest you reconsider your position in order to launch a successful appeal. Unauthorized manipulation of an organization's database is inexcusable in the best case and potentially grounds for criminal investigation. We aren't currently looking into the legal aspects of your actions but the idea is not outside the scope of this BoD.

Your relationship with the pilot population, several members of the local pilot community and the HPAC in general are as a direct result of your words and actions. You are routinely offensive and divisive in your communications and derogatory toward the HPAC and it's BoD's. I can speak personally for the HPAC BoD to assure you that you're not, "Hated" by any member of the HPAC BoD or Executive. We are all volunteering in a volunteer organization to maintain and advance the sports of Hang Gliding and Paragliding in Canada and throughout the world with our global partners. Your communications and actions have lead you to this current position that you find yourself in. Humble, public and contrite admission and apology to our members for breaching their trust is the only faint hope I can see to launching a successful appeal.

Expulsion is rarely sought as a remedy and as such we very carefully consider each case. We don't take this position lightly or without considerable consultation, discussion and thought. That should give you an indication of how serious we consider your actions to be. It is not us that are in the wrong or need to explain or justify your current status.

Your continued allegations of criminal activity by any other HPAC members are unfounded. We have repeatedly warned you about these unfounded accusations and directed you toward Police intervention. Continued accusations about other pilots only drives you further from reasonable re-integration with the HPAC.

Conduct yourself accordingly,

Bruce Busby,

President HPAC

===============================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:30:41 -0600
Subject: Re: unwarranted expulsion!
To: Bruce Busby , britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, "Treasurer@ACVL.ca" , "bod@hpac.ca"

Hello, I mean to the untainted BoD members in particular.

1- first of all, my suspension and expulsion seems to have nothing to do with a rating change for testing. The error was simply that I forgot to return the rating to normal afterwards. This is not an issue worthy of the actions you take. Moreover, the issue was solved. It is completely irrelevant today.

The accident report page was my duty i.e. The html part is made by me. And I did an excellent job. I had to test it with PG ratings to insure the translation and the displays were correct. I used an endorsement for the test since a full rating was frowned upon. This is just normal part of working websites and there is no issue there unless one wants to make it an issue.

2- The grandfathering is not in the SOP but should probably be in.

3- The BoD seems to want more powers while reducing the powers of the members without discussing it with the members. When it is abused the way it is now, a sizeable proportion would be against. A suspension and expulsion may be warranted for grave lapse in security. Not for retaliating purposes.

I would like to appeal to the BoD at large. Choosing Bruce Busby as your spokesperson does not bode well. We recently had an exchange on fb (see attachment [-available upon request-] ) that proves he has, if not hatred like he pretends, certainly a humongous bias. Busby often express himself as if he knows me but we practically never meet and we never have talked in person and I have never seen him at a site to fly. In the attachment, in spite of the harsh words, you'll notice that I tried to open his eyes with facts. His reaction is just to dismiss, insult, threaten. According to the application of your rules on me, wouldn't it make Busby also candidate for expulsion?

Isn't an immediate suspension followed by expulsion the most divisive move the association can do?

Kicking me out of the association will only exacerbate the situation. The BoD should channel Domagoj and keep the association a cool place to be part of, as my hard work's goal was.

thanks,

Serge

=====================

2016-05-24 21:21 UTC−06:00, Tom Sliepen :

Dear Serge,

The communications that you have received from Bruce and Margit, including the responses to your recent rebuttals, have all been in name of and supported by all board members unanimously.

As a member of the board I too have been part of the lengthy discussions about how to approach what we perceived a clear breach of trust and overstepping of privileges. None of us took the expulsion lightly, it took a lot of time for us to make sure that there was no better way of dealing with this. The effort that all of us on the board have put into this, should signal to you how seriously we took the matter.

In my personal opinion, what you have written in response so far has only confirmed the need for us to take serious action. It is not the response we hoped for and which would lead to an overturning of the expulsion.

Please take a few days to breathe and step back, and to reconsider your approach so far against the expulsion. I wish you could see my sincerity when I say that.

Kindly,

Tom Sliepen

HPAC board member - SK

===============================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 01:24:16 -0600
Subject: Re: unwarranted expulsion!
To: Tom Sliepen
Cc: Margit Nance , "bod@hpac.ca"

Hi Tom,

at least someone else than Busby. I do not ever want to have any contact to him and I wrote it first. I forbade him to talk about me and to me, and I did it first.

I'm sorry to hear this, but there was no breach of trust at all. Testing with databases is done all the time. I did not have nor wanted to create a dummy member, so I used myself. A breach of trust would be changing data in a malicious way, to deceive or obtain something. I don't see where you find that. What I see is panic, fear, hatred.

Think. You voted for an immediate suspension out of the blue. No warning. I have no recourse, you offer no solution, nothing at all. You gave yourself absolute power over members and you eagerly decide to apply it first on me. Abusive on day one.

You should revote to nullify the suspension right away, then talking would be possible. I don't know what you want from me. I do good work, go above and beyond the necessary occasionally and I get this crap.

thanks,

Serge.

================================

2016-05-25 0:07 UTC−06:00, Bruce Busby :

Serge,You edited our Facebook exchange. You forgot the really juicy parts where you call me lots of colourful names. I too have the full conversation saved, in case you need a refresher. Many members of this BoD worked with Dom for years. He was a close friend of mine. I am offended that you, knowing nothing of him, would petition us in his name. NEVER use him or his memory to defend your case again. I have complete confidence that he would unwavering lead the charge in this action as he did in previous cases. I know it because of the 10 years we worked and talked together. I will not repeat this but rest assured, I'm at the end of my rope with you. I have nothing more to say to you. In my last message, I laid out a clear course for you to follow. The ball is in your court.

Bruce Busby

======================================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 01:30:34 -0600
Subject: Re: unwarranted expulsion!
To: Bruce Busby
Cc: britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, "Treasurer@ACVL.ca", "bod@hpac.ca"

Busby, the lot of colourful names just mirrored the lot you gave on a public post about me. I left it out because it was unbalanced. Find your lot first.

========================================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:35:56 -0600
Subject: Re: unwarranted expulsion!
To: Bruce Busby , Scott Watwood , "Treasurer@ACVL.ca" , "bod@hpac.ca"

Hello,

I have given it more thoughts.

I am actually more a programmer than a translator and I am analysing your disciplinary action with these skills. The crux of your disciplinary action is a change in my rating judged a breach of trust while it was really an oversight after a test. Two tests in fact, one in 2015 and one a few months ago. I recalled well the recent one, which I thought was the one referred to in the april 7 letter and I discussed this one already at length. However, the disciplinary letter refers to the one in 2015, which I had a hard time remembering. I recall now that it had to do with generating a list of members or instructors according to ratings and disciplines that the Executive Director asked me to do. The website however was generating coded ratings in numbers and sometimes in letters. I did add myself a known PG rating to try to disambiguate the codes. I forgot to return my rating to normal after the work was done. A date/time check of the change in rating would no doubt correlate with my work on this list. I can witness that pretty much everyone makes forgetful errors, the ED more so than I ever do. These are the facts.

The interpretation that it was a breach of trust follows phone arguments that were misinterpreted. The ratings may be a source of pride but they are in fact only evaluation of skills. Only the master rating is somewhat agrandising and I am not the slightly interested in obtaining it. So I was simply saying that the ED was making a fuss for nothing and that I had all the skills to paraglide anyway, except for the SIV. I have the HAGAR and the HG skills transfers well to PG. I was not denigrating the instructors, the rating system or anyone at all. The rating system is very useful of course. I did not have a paraglider to fly with in 2015, so whatever PG rating showing on the site had no real consequence whatsoever.

There being no actual breach of trust, the disciplinary action is groundless.

I have been abiding in not using any HPAC property to warn pilots as outlined in april 7 letter, so the disciplinary action is also groundless in this regard. Moreover, I did not warn pilots either in my other public communications.

In the disciplinary letter, you refer to the rule of SOP 320-3 in pid=405. These rules are marked draft and do not include immediate suspension. There is no reference in the rule for a total suspension which is a factual immediate expulsion, since I am not even found in the HPAC database anymore. It states that expulsion is "the most severe disciplinary measure available". The BoD did not justify in any way that this is "the most viable option". Natural justice requires a step by step approach to discipline up a ladder of escalating consequences, not an immediate jump to the final and most serious consequence, as I pointed out previously. The Board is required to follow both HPAC's own rules and the law of natural justice, failing to do so nullifies the expulsion and any and all of its consequences.

I have received legal counsel and have contacted friends in the flying community. I am not suing, I simply believe the BoD is out of line and should completely rescind its decision immediately.

Thanks,

Serge.

=====================================

nick.jones@rogers.com
27 mai 2016 à 08:04
À : Serge Lamarche , bod@hpac.ca

This is not a discussion. You have a limited opportunity to convince the BoD that your membership should be reinstated.

I believe you truly don't understand why we are so upset. The ratings are, as you say, an evaluation of skills. In fact, they are a certification by HPAC (represented by a HPAC certified instructor) that a pilot meets the requirements for a rating or endorsement. These ratings are used by pilots to get access to flying sites in Canada and the US and also to get an IPPI card which is recognized by other countries. If word got out that HPAC ratings were subject to editing by unauthorized individuals then our international reputation could suffer greatly and might even create legal liability or insurance problems.

For these and other reasons, the executive director has exclusive authority over the member database, period.‎ You circumvented that authority.

It is not necessary for you to agree with the BoD, you must simply accept that the BoD views your actions much more seriously than you do.

Here is my suggestion (no guarantees this will be sufficient for the other BoD members):

1) Admit that you made the database changes (without making excuses about why)

2) Acknowledge that you now understand you should have received permission from the ED before making database changes for any reason

3)‎ Acknowledge that you now understand how important the security of the pilot ratings database is to HPAC, and‎

4) Make a commitment to visit an instructor to get at least your P2 rating before you fly a paraglider without instructor supervision.‎

Do this in writing, without making excuses and without blaming anyone else, and with some expression of regret for how you acted, and you have a shot at the BoD reversing it's decision.‎‎

We all want this to end, please give us a reason to end it.‎

Nick Jones

Vice President, HPAC

P.S. Please do not respond with arguments and discussion. I will not reply. The BoD will review your response after the 30 day period expires.

===============================

Serge Lamarche
27 mai 2016 à 15:03
À : nick.jones@rogers.com

Hi Nick,

Well, you sure make me upset to the max. You tamper not only with my rating but with my whole membership without justification. You could have asked the same thing nicely.

There has to be a discussion because the BoD has not offered a solution yet. One said faint hope, you suggest another set of requirements. At least you are clear.

You say there is a fear the word could come out the ratings could be edited. In reality, my actual rating never changed. Only the display of it online change temporarily. The database could occasionally contain errors in rating, name, address, etc. even by being very careful. Will you suspend the ED if this happen?

By items:

1) I admitted and I gave explanations. These are not excuses. Your expulsion is not justified and I certainly view it as excuses. Read Busby.

2) I understand your point and agree. Better yet, there could be a dummy member we could edit at will for test purposes. We don't need to edit members data other than for tests. Although, we could be authorised for making corrections, updates, etc. 3) I do understand. You don't understand that the database security never was at risk.

4) I am grandfathered paraglider. There was no point getting a pg rating since I did not own one. Now I do. I was planning to get ratings this summer and asked one instructor already. I don't know why you are being restrictive to P2. I was planning to go higher but I should keep the right to fly PG in the meantime. I plan to fly PG only in very safe conditions and fly the HG otherwise. I consider PG very dangerous compared to HG.

You have to back down on the suspension/expulsion thing. It is plain abusive and done in bad faith. How many other members will you abuse this way?

You can pass on this info to the BoD members [-non-edited texts available upon request-] .

thanks,

Serge.

===================fb conversation, Serge - Gilles (BoD):

Serge Lamarche 2016-05-22 22:43

Gilles, c'est quoi l'idée de l'expulsion?! Non, pourquoi? Qui a voté pour une bêtise pareille? Faut ressusciter Domagoj.

-------------------

23:28 2016-05-28

Serge Lamarche

Hey Gilles, si tu réponds pas, t'as rien à faire dans ma liste d'amis.

-------------------

09:00 2016-05-29

Gilles Normandeau

Serge, la manipulation des données de l'association est un abus de confiance très grave dans n'importe quel corporation ou organisation et c'est un forte raison pour être congédié. J'ai écouté les deux cotés de l'histoire et la tienne semble avoir évolué. Nous t'avons offert un moyen de t'excuser; le reste est à toi.

-------------------

11:28 Serge Lamarche

Gilles, C'est arrivé en 2015 et ce n'est pas de la manipulation comme tu dis. Vos accusations et actions sont aussi, sinon encore plus graves. Ce n'était pas matière à congédiement en 2015, pourquoi ce le serait en 2016. En plus, vous avez fait une suspension/expulsion qui est un abus de pouvoir flagrant.

-------------------

Gilles Normandeau

Malheureusement, ce changement n'a pas été découvert avant le mois d'avril 2016. Huit mois sont passés, pendant lesquels une correction aurais pu été faite. Rien de plus à dire. Tu as encore quelques semaines pour t'excuser. Penses-y.

-------------------

12:28 Serge Lamarche

Gilles, tu es mal informé et tu n'as pas bien lu le texte de l'expulsion. En hiver 2015, j'ai fait un changement dans ma qualification afin de démélanger les codes de qualifications pour une liste que Margit m'a demandé de faire. J'ai oublié de retourner ma qualification au normal et en août 2015, Margit a fait la correction et vous a envoyé une lettre. 2015. Vous mélangez tout!

-------------------

11 : 55 2016-05-30 Serge Lamarche

Je relis la lettre d'expulsion et elle est aussi erronée. J'avais ajouté la qualification en avril 2015 pour générer les graphiques circulaires (pie charts) correctement et c'est resté comme ça jusqu'en août 2015.

====================================

From: Serge Lamarche
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:39:52 -0600
Subject: unwarranted expulsion!
To: britishcolumbia@hpac.ca, Alberta@acvl.ca, Saskatchewan@hpac.ca, Manitoba@acvl.ca, Ontario@acvl.ca, Quebec@acvl.ca, Maritimes@acvl.ca, Yukon@acvl.ca, Treasurer@acvl.ca

Hello,

I want this to end ASAP as much as anyone else.

To be sure the whole BoD understands the issue, here are basic FACTS regarding the rating change. They differ from what the author(s) of the expulsion letter pretend and hence should be interpreted differently. Some BoD members have shown that the facts were not forwarded to them accurately.

April 2015 : I am asked to produce pie charts from the website data regarding membership including ratings and non ratings. More than 80 paraglider in BC had no rating. The codes for ratings being hard to decipher, I altered my own rating to include a PG rating with the goal of disambiguating the rating codes. It helped. I forgot however to return my PG rating to what it was.

August 2015 : The ED was made aware somehow that my PG rating was not accurate. She called me and changed it back to normal. I did not recall right away why I had changed the rating leading to argumentations. Later, after she wrote to the BoD, I recalled it was in April because of the problem recognising the rating codes. I discussed it with the ED but she apparently did not forward the info to the BoD.

This winter of 2016, I was assigned to make the accident form and needed to test with PG as well. I did add an endorsement to myself to ensure it was working properly. The work on the accident form lingered and so my added endorsement, which the ED removed in March or April.

To assert that I changed my displayed rating and endorsement on the website for any other reason than testing or work-related is spurious at best.

All issues mentioned in the april 7 letter have been resolved peacefully before the expulsion letter was produced. The expulsion letter is not proposing any solution, it is rather citing past issues that could be seen as excuses to expell a member. At issue here is the value of such a drastic disciplinary action enacted by the BoD, unrelated to the effects of what is interpreted as offences. A BoD member try to justify the expulsion by the supposed risk posed to the insurance coverage provided to the HPAC, the IPPI card requests. No such risk or danger exist in reality.

Further communications with the BoD as a group or individually demonstrated that some solution was possible but varied arbitrarily between them. Moreover, some BoD members were not aware of the facts as I laid them out. They are not aware of the facts because they never contacted me directly and the ED did not make them aware.

All this being said, I do ackowledge that I should have asked the ED to do the changes in rating and endorsement for the tests, or asked permission to do so myself. It would have avoided some fear of a database break and would likely have reduced the odd of being forgotten. I apologized for that already to the ED.

The BoD seem to be busy cooking up rules to protect the HPAC from any harm while having no issue harming its members individually. The HPAC is an association of individual members and they may find the BoD is erring, in particular with this case. A scrutiny of the rules may find the disciplinary SOP needs to be overhauled to make sure they are honest, legal, and not a source of petty abuses. They must abide by the law of the land and natural law. The use of the disciplinary SOP must be restricted by strict guidelines that should be part of this SOP in my opinion.

I want to avoid a lawsuit but time is running out. Here is the best solution :

The BoD immediately reinstate my membership and my employment as it was and I promise to :
- issue an apology to the HPAC, its membership, the ED and/or the BoD for having modified my PG rating and endorsement as explained above.
- make efforts starting this summer to obtain an actual PG rating and further, as time and weather allows.
- not comment on other persons laws-abiding status in public posts and to refer them to the police instead.

I further promise to be available as needed to work on guidelines for the disciplinary SOP to prevent further abuses to members.

Truly,

Serge Lamarche
Golden, BC.

===================

See Letter to BoD june 20 from Fairley and Scott. (pdf)

===================

See Letter from HPAC june 28 to Fairley and Scott and Serge Lamarche (pdf)

=========================

Serge Lamarche 17 juillet 2016 à 13:37
À : HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC
Cc : board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr
Mrs Nance, BoD HPAC, and all,

Re: continued expulsion without justification or merit

Two different lawyers have concluded that the expulsion and termination were illegal. As such and according to legal counsel, this nullifies the expulsion and termination and I am hence still an insured member of the HPAC and technically still working for the HPAC. Your continuous claims that I jeopardise sites is most egregious, to recycle your term.

As I previously mentioned in conciliatory manners that should have been understandable by anyone, there was no breach of trust and the addition of a PG endorsement (not a rating) was done in 2015 for testing the accident form. It is most egregious to claim that such a thing could have been done for self-agrandisement. Ridiculous, even. Moreover, the endorsements are a simple skill reference of academic use and bear no consequence whatsoever in the use of flying sites. Endorsements bear no effects either on insurance as was egregiously claimed by one of the BoD. As additional evidence, once the Executive Director removed the PG thermal soaring endorsement from my record when the accident form was near completion, she judged appropriate to add a HG thermal soaring endorsement to my record. In general, not having a rating or endorsement is not a proof that a pilot does not have the skills of the rating or endorsement.

I received my private pilot licence in 1983. I did fly Cessna and Piper planes. Shortly after, I had the check on ultralight type, which allowed me to fly ultralights, and I did for a few years. In 1984, I took a hang gliding course and fly hang gliders since, now having more than 2500 hours airtime hang gliding. In 1988, I was introduced to paragliding on mont Ste-Anne. I did fly paragliders occasionally in 1994, 95, 98, 99. More so in 2000 and 2001 after following a paragliding course at Muller Wind Sport and buying paragliding equipment. After that in 2002, 05, 06, 08, 12, 13, 14, and this year with new PG gear. I have more than 50 hours airtime paragliding. I am a paraglider with no rating as is the case for numerous others, more than 80 in BC alone.

I have supported the HPAC since its inception and bear the member number 122. I have volunteered many hundreds of hours for the HPAC before being formally hired with contract for translation, but was working as more than translator since and before then.

[-non-edited texts available upon request-]

How can the BoD demand of the instructors to follow a code of conduct after their illegal behaviors? A code of conduct appears to be necessary for the BoD as well.
I wish the BoD had not been so abusive from the start with an expulsion, something that seems appropriate in cases of impending death, imminent danger and such. I promised that I would apologise if the BoD had rescind their outrageous expulsion. After all, the endorsement test I added was about as offensive and dangerous as a little boy putting a small toy in the cookie jar, without taking a cookie, mind you... so possibly worthy of some apology. I almost did apologise but was advised by legal counsel to simply promise the apology, since the actions of the BoD were illegal and counterproductive. Some people can't, either morally or by profession, condone illegal activities. Now that the BoD insisted in their erroneous and most egregious actions, a third party may be required to resolve the issues created, which would likely include having them removed. Consequently, to limit all the BoD useless aggravations, so far causing much grief, expenses, loss of income and damage to reputation, the BoD is invited to redeem themselves a notch by rescinding completely their illegal decisions, voluntarily remove the current president from the BoD since he proved his fondness of intimidation (not something supported by the whole BoD I hope), and all other BoD members apologise to me and to the members of the HPAC on the HPAC website and on facebook in both languages. Following this, a complete rework of the disciplinary measures to make them abide to Canadian laws and values would be required as I mentioned in a previous email. Currently, the rules drafted, since we don't even know the new voted rules the HPAC BoD endowed themselves (which are even worse, evidently), are perfect for a totalitarian regime like the Stalin dictatorship. Or would they also fit perfectly the mafia?

The executive director may convey BoD apologies for writing all these egregious things for the BoD.

thanks,
Serge Lamarche
Golden, BC
HPAC member 122.

===================

Mark Kowalsky
17 juillet 2016 à 14:28
À : Serge Lamarche
Cc : HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

I advise against any response whatsoever. If there is a serious position taken, it will come from his counsel, of at all.

M a r k K o w a l s k y
Barrister & Solicitor
P.O. Box 280
Midland, ON L4R 4K8
ph:(705) 526-1336
fx: (705) 526-8499

==========================

hgpilot
17 juillet 2016 à 15:01
À : Mark Kowalsky , Serge Lamarche
Cc : HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

Mark, I think your advice would be sound and reasonable for people of sound mind. Serge is not of sound mind. Without a response, in my opinion, he will consider it a win and assume he may fly and resume work.

May I suggest that the office send a single paragraph response stating that he is currently expelled and not a member. He is no longer a contractor up the hpac.

I saw him 3 weeks ago. I can tell you that he's not rational and not compliant.

Bruce

===========================

Mark Kowalsky Mark Kowalski
17 juillet 2016 à 15:31
À : hgpilot
Cc : Mark Kowalsky , Serge Lamarche , HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

Perhaps. My idea is based on the same concept that engaging in logical discourse is futile. Your suggestion is consistent with that. Your mileage may vary of course. Less is more

Sent from MiPhone

=======================

from: nick.jones@rogers.com
To: Mark Kowalsky , hgpilot
Cc : Mark Kowalsky , Serge Lamarche , HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

When your kid is lying on the floor of the supermarket throwing a fit, sometimes the right thing to do is walk away... not the same situation, but more talking is not going to help here. Our letter of expulsion should be the last word, any reply we make is just asking for another email...

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Bell network.

======================

From: Gerry
Date: Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 9:30 PM
Subject: Re:
To: Stewart Midwinter
Cc: Nick Jones , Mark Kowalsky , hgpilot , Mark Kowalsky , HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

Yeah, did you follow our regulations this time?







On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Stewart Midwinter wrote: Just one question guys. Did the notice of expulsion specify the reasons for that expulsion? Nick, did you intend to include Serge in your last email? I just noticed that you did include him. Actually, I notice that the other emails also included Serge.

===================

Serge Lamarche
18 juillet 2016 à 17:26
À : HPAC-ACVL ACVL-HPAC , board of directors HPAC-ACVL , Bodr

Let's go by person:

Mark Kowalski: the question is not whether my position is serious, but whether it is true. It is of course, and Mark knows it. He knows also that Busby does called me things as soon as he get the chance, like when I posted my feeling about guys kissing (totally normal for anyone hetero). Coincidentally, this triggered the exchange I had with Busby copied in an earlier reply. I've always been very logical and scoring high in all math logical tests, these being the highest scores I ever had in school, nearing 100%. The comment Mark does about logical discourse is quite unusual about me, and strange, or... queer?

mr Busby: [-non-edited texts available upon request-] he does not own up to his threats like a man. But now he knows I report events accurately and he should consider what it means about Soprano... or does he know already? Can bandits ever be telling the truth? Probably not. mr = most rotten.

Nick Jones: The kid is not throwing a fit, simply giving a chance to the parents to resolve the issue peacefully, before the authorities get involved. So many abusive parents get away with unspeakable crimes though.

Stewart Midwinter: The expulsion is not legal, it's baseless. The notice was inaccurate at best. I can send you the full dossier if you want to check the whole story. The BoD members are in fact now in good position to be expelled immediately themselves according to their rules! What a small group of people usurpating power does, is incredible. The membership should be informed.

======publié le 11 août sur yahoo groupes et fb/ published aug 11 on yahoo groups and fb :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HPAC.ACVL/permalink/10157583405780157/

Hello all, Bonjour tous,
I am starting an information campaign. Je commence une campagne d'information.

english:
HPAC BoD mad with power! This spring, the board of directors (BoD) voted themselves rules that give them absolute power over the members. Their first move? Unscrupulously expel me (illegally). What is most stunning and disturbing is that not a single BoD member saw this (illegal!) expulsion as wrong. Read this open letter to start getting informed: http://mt7.ca/lettredu17juillet2016.html

french:
Le CA de l'ACVL abusent du pouvoir! Ce printemps, le conseil administratif (CA) s'est voté des règles qui leur donne le pouvoir absolu sur les membres. Leur premier acte? M'expulser (illégalement) sans scrupule. Le plus inquiétant et surprenant est qu'aucun des administrateurs du CA n'a vu le tort de cette expulsion (illégale!). Lisez cette lettre ouverte pour commencer à être informé (anglais, traduction disponible sur demande): http://mt7.ca/lettredu17juillet2016.html

thanks,
Serge Lamarche
Golden, BC

==========autre fb affiché en rapport avec la question/ other fb post related to the issue:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HPAC.ACVL/permalink/10157595413630157/

==========

More is available upon request to sergelamarche@gmail.com

Plus est disponible sur demande à sergelamarche@gmail.com