The USHPA lawyer, Tim Herr, gave
this presentation to the USHPA BOD last Thursday afternoon. You can find out
more about it
here
at the Standards for Excellence Institute.

Let me start off saying that I have a number of reservations about this program,
a program that has been proposed by our Executive Director and our lawyer and
supported by our President. But you should go through the presentation that I
have linked to above and see what you think.

1) This seems like a program for fund raising charity oriented non profits (say
like the Foundation for Free Flight), not for membership non profits and sports
associations. We don't seem to be the kind of non-profit that are members of the
institute. I don't see any other sports association as members and I wonder if
there are any. We should talk to a number of other sports organizations to see
if they are considering this move.

2) "(3) The board should meet as frequently as is needed to fully and adequately
conduct the business of the organization. At a minimum, the board should meet
four (4) times a year."

This requirement can't be realistically met. The USHPA BOD is made up of
regional representatives and is much larger and more unwieldy than a typical non
profit board. It is more like a senate. It is very costly in time and money to
get it to meeting. I have been pushing for years for a single in person meeting
a year and a second virtual meeting.

3) The excellence that they are referring to seems to have little to do with
actual excellence in delivering member services. Take a look at its metrics.
Only one point out of many about delivering membership services or asking
members how they feel about the organization.

4) Seems like a "professionals' employment act."

5) The whole fund raising section doesn't apply. The argument is that is may
apply in the future.

6) We get a "silver star" (which we can display on our materials) if we do this.
The benefit to cost ratio seems out of whack. This recognition is supposed to
attract and reassure donors, which we really aren't looking for.

7) We always have trade-offs, if we did this we have to do less of something
else, like supporting our members.

I wouldn't raise these issues except that it was received so enthusiastically by
our top officer and our top employee. I would like a lot of thinking about it,
especially about the trade-offs before we take any action. I have seen so much
wasted energy trying to implement obscure and ill thought-out parts of the
strategic plan that I am extremely skeptical. Can't we have an open discussion
with our members this time?

Now, what looks good about the certification?

1) Organization and program evaluation.

2) "Nonprofits should regularly monitor the satisfaction of program
participants."

3) Well, almost everything about the requirements are good things, but all
benefits have costs. If you want something you can't have something else, as
resources are always limited.