Allow me a short paragraph to summarize my own background, an understanding of which may be helpful in evaluating my comments. I graduated from the University of Miami (Florida) with an undergraduate degree in engineering and a masters in business. I taught for a year at the university, and had a couple of more-educational-than-financially-rewarding positions before starting my own companies in the 60’s and 70’s. My interests lie in three major industries: industrial real estate, packaging and skiing. I started Ski Roundtop in 1964, when I acquired the land and organized the corporation; we acquired Ski Liberty in 1976 and Ski Windham in 1981 — both from the bankruptcy courts.
Until we acquired Windham, I took little interest in either state or national ski industry trade associations. Both Hans Geier and Sepp Gmuender ably represented our interests in Pennsylvania and at the national level. With Windham, however, our commitment to the industry (read that “debt”!) doubled.
I was asked if I would serve on the NSAA board, agreed to and was elected in 1985. When the NSAA/SIA merger took place in 1989, I was invited to the emerging USIA board and was asked to serve as secretary and as a member of the executive committee. I never “politicked” for those — or any other — positions, as I serve on several boards, professional and volunteer, and am very selective in the allocation of my time to assure that business obligations do not interfere with the much higher priority of recreational skiing, scuba diving, tennis, horseback riding and travel!
In any event, what I thought I was bringing to the USIA board/executive committee was a strong educational background; business diversity outside of the ski industry; hands-on experience in starting a ski area and acquiring others; the security/discretionary time of an owner; and an industry perception that two of our three areas are “small.”
Such is the personal background for the observations that follow.
The NSAA board I joined in 1985 probably had an average tenure of 15 years. Channing Murdock and Tom Corcoran had each served for over 20 years! Regardless of contribution — and each was/is a successful entrepreneur with well documented record of leadership — that’s simply too long and prevents others from serving on the board. I believe, particularly on a volunteer board, that a candidate should come on the board, give it his absolute best for a limited period of time, and then leave, so that new thinking is always available.
Additionally, there was substantial unhappiness with the Springfield office. I have often wondered if the NSAA/SIA merger would have taken place if the leadership in 1988/89 had had the courage to address this the year prior to the merger.
I was skeptical of the proposed merger, and I think every director from NSAA and SIA who attended those preliminary meetings at the Chicago Airport was skeptical. Regardless, the McKinsey report was accepted and acted upon; the rest is history.
Let me say now that I think the merger had the potential for unqualified success. The reason I say “potential” is that there are some topics which are of primary interest only to NSAA members (such as risk management, B77, public lands issues etc.), and some of primary interest only to SIA members (import quotas, duties and regulations, the Las Vegas show, retail management etc.). These unique subjects should be addressed by separate NSAA and SIA boards. From these two boards could be selected individuals to represent each group on an umbrella board, which could devote all its time and energy to matters which specifically impact both ski industry groups: budgeting, ASF, national marketing etc.
As it is, the time spent at USIA board meetings on subjects not of primary interest to half of those in attendance is not a proper use of everyone’s time. It also means that there simply is not enough time to focus on all those special areas of interest and still be able to receive, evaluate and thoughtfully act upon committee reports.
(I prepared a memorandum for the board on this “three board” concept which was included in the October 2 board packet; I wrote another in March, with a recommendation that the board appoint a blue-ribbon committee to review and recommend.)
Many of the historic accomplishments at the NSAA committee level are not being continued at the USIA board level, and this represents an egregious loss to the industry and will not be corrected, in my judgment, until there is a more direct reporting process than the one now in effect. It should be remembered that the old NSAA was, in most cases, driven by strong committees, whereas Dave Ingemie and USIA are not so oriented. The strong committees to which the ski area members were accustomed have not as yet developed with USIA. I think they will in time. One of our most important committees, education, is now under the guidance of Gary McCoy, and I am confident that under his leadership it will emerge stronger and more effective than it has ever been.
The strength of any board is in the people who comprise it; but the current nomination process is terrible! Instead of each region selecting its own representatives to the board, where there would be constituency responsibility, members are chosen by a sequestered few — or by the throwing of old bones into a cold fire, which I suspect would be just as effective. The board needs more small ski area representation. And what’s wrong with nominating our first woman? To name just one, Melanie Murphy (Big Boulder/Jack Frost in Pennsylvania) would make a super contribution were she tapped!
Right from the start there has been a lot of churning in the composition of the USIA board and in the sequencing of the line of succession to the chairmanship, the details of which are probably of interest mostly to the people involved.
During USIA’s first year I served as secretary and then was asked to be treasurer to fill in for Bruce Biddle (Skyr), whose company was being reorganized. From there I would normally have gone on to 3rd vice chairman, but last spring, Chris Diamond (Mt. Snow), apparently with the approval of the nominating committee, thought that Gary McCoy (Mammoth) should come in as 3rd vice chairman instead of me. His logic was that both he and I are from the East and, in compliance with precedent, he should be followed by someone from the West. Gary McCoy, a very talented man, was a natural selection. However, it gave me the interesting choice of resigning or staying in for an additional 12 years to be chairman! I would not be honest if I did not say I would have liked to have been chairman; I think I’d have been a good one. But I’d already been on the board for seven years and to stay for another 12 — by which time I would have been 69 — didn’t seem to make much sense. Besides, I was quite comfortable with my replacement as treasurer, Dan Seme (Snowshoe) — a man for whom I have enormous respect.
Additionally, as long as I was on the board, none of the extremely talented executives in our company could be considered for nomination to the board. I hope that over the next few years one of them will be nominated and choose to serve.
A brief word about the USIA personalities. I didn’t know David Ingemie very well before the merger, but know him quite well now, and I will say unequivocally that he is one of the most able men I have ever met. His organizational mastery of the complexities of the Las Vegas Trade Show is almost beyond comprehension. I think our industry is blessed to have a man of his ability and integrity. His staff today is first-class; I do not know of a significant deficiency in his organization.
I agree with many industry luminaries who think our headquarters should be in “snow country” — probably Denver or Salt Lake City. But I don’t think it’s an issue worth “going to the mat” for right now. Some board someday will have the membership mandate and money to make the move.
I was the last hold-out on the executive committee on the dues increase for ski area members. But, after seriously reviewing the numbers in detail, I agreed to support the increase as I think it is justified.
The most significant problem that I see for USIA in the near term is perceived benefit of membership. During its first years, USIA was a totally (national) marketing-driven organization, and that was wrong. I said many times that we could fail as a marketing organization and continue to exist, but we could not fail as a trade organization and justify our existence.
Many ski area managers have complained that many of our important committees have broken down; many have complained they cannot “input” to USIA, and thus to the industry; there is a perception that USIA is attempting to usurp local and regional powers, particularly marketing.
In summary, if I “owned” USIA, these are the immediate changes I would put into effect:
- A three-board governance: separate NSAA and SIA boards to handle subjects unique to each group; an umbrella board drawn from these which would be responsible for functions common to both.
- Regional election of ski area board members.
- Directors elect officers by secret ballot— a simple and less “political” process than our present system.
- Reinforce USIA support of local and regional marketing, management and education programs.
- Prepare now to move to “ski country” within the next five years.
As an overview, let me remind anyone with the patience to have read this that all committee and USIA board members donate a substantial amount of volunteer time to help the industry — and at some sacrifice, given the frugal USIA reimbursement guidelines. I encourage talented people in our industry to get involved, instead of just complaining or carping. It’s your organization, and it will never be any better than you demand it to be.
I have genuinely enjoyed serving my industry for seven years. I will miss the board and executive committee meetings; more importantly, I will miss being with a lot of people whom I have grown to like.
