[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Morison

Palmer, that's not at all what I am saying.
What I AM saying is that the opinions from the zone are voiced in the discussion leading up to a vote. When it comes time to vote, the responsibility of a director is to vote for what they honestly think is in the best interests of the corporation. This may not be in agreement with rest of the board ... and rarely would you get complete agreement. BUT, and more importantly, the director's vote MAY be against the wishes of their zone, particularly if the discussion has raised new information that would change the directors mind!

that TOTAL BS!!!
as a ZD his ZONE gave him a mandate to vote it is his DUTY plane and simple to vote as directed by his MEMBERSHIP!!!!

Again this is WHY they have votes.... every vote does not have to PASS by 100%... JUST because ONE ZONE sees it differently then others it does not make them right or wrong.

IF you going to run MAAC the why want Keith we should just elemate the ZD's and have one GOD run MAAC. Tell hell with what the membership thinks. After all they only pay the bills.

[ronm]

Originally Posted by Usetobechair

I would be getting rid of that ZD. This is the basic problem, when people are elected they start to believe they know more than the people who put them there.

Hopefully they do!
That's why I vote for them, instead of running myself!

[Morison]

Originally Posted by Usetobechair

I would be getting rid of that ZD. This is the basic problem, when people are elected they start to believe they know more than the people who put them there.

BY the nature of the fact that Directors are privy to information and discussions that the general membership aren't - the DO know more than the members do ... in fact it is their responsibility to know more than the members do. (and NO, I don't mean they should HIDE infomation from the members)

As for the duty of the director being primarily to the corporation... that is common knowledge and prety basic to the principles of corporate operations.

[Usetobechair]

Mike I don't see anything wrong with my statements of opinion

1 you make statements supporting items you have no knowledge of
2 you assume proper proposals where not in place
3 you quite the SA committee as chair
4 you don't have an inside track to the nats unless you are getting confidential information from someone
5 feel free to correct my opinions Iam listening

[Usetobechair]

keith here it is again

Nice statement about board members. Can you show me where this statement exsists in Corporations Canada, specific to a Mutual Benefit Not for Profit Corporation

Your common knowledge is incorrect

Any way, nice to hear from you keith, look up what i just asked and e-mail me with what you find
have to go to a meeting, Mike lighten up, you know I respect what you have done

[sivle]

Originally Posted by Usetobechair

Kieth, why would you believe such a statement. There has been no confidential information given to anyone. I am not even aware of any confidential information at this time, other than employee information.

And for the record, I am fully aware of Corp Can rule on Confidentiality.
To bad others are not.

In order to be transparent ( I heard that word on this site ) you must share. who is maac really for, the people who think they are incharge or the members. When you answer this question a lot of items become understandable.


once again some people making statements and others jumping on the band wagon.

I can remember e=mailing you personally to discuss situations rather than discuss it on this site. I wish you would give me the same curtiousy

Chuck, just to clear up some issues. I was at the AZM. I specifically asked why our zone director was breaching a confidence of the Executive MAAC committee. I was told by both you and Gerry that " The membership must be able to know everything that is talked about and discussed as it is the right of each member to know". Furthermore you yourself read the confidential report aloud to all of the members present.
I don't disagreed that the members should be allowed to know what is going on, but the information should not be release until it has been finalized. Discussions in private should be left in private.Gerry and yourself claimed that you want to be transparent. As our zone director I am asking for you to post the following information where any Maac member can read it. The information I am requesting is as follows;
1) Proposal for the 2006 nats.
2) Complete breakdown of the financial report for the 2005 NATS.
3) A date and location as to where to retrieve the above.

I trust that you will comply with this request and thank you in advance.

[50%300SFlyer]

Im not going to comment on this issue any further, except to say that there are 13 board members who will collectively decide if there will be a full Nats in 2006. Im confident they will make the right decision based on all of the facts.

[RC_MAN]

Chuck how can I help?

Peter Doupnik

[Morison]

Originally Posted by Jabba

as a ZD his ZONE gave him a mandate to vote it is his DUTY plane and simple to vote as directed by his MEMBERSHIP!!!!

IF you going to run MAAC the why want Keith we should just elemate the ZD's and have one GOD run MAAC. Tell hell with what the membership thinks. After all they only pay the bills.

Again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying. The opinions, thoughts and desires of the membership are crutial to the successfull operation of the association. That said, implementing their wishes without being open to new information and investigation of options (also the duty of the directors) is extremely unwise.

As an example, a resolution comes from the floor of an AZM, and at the board meeting preceeding the AGM the resolution is shown to have CLEAR legal ramifications that would cost the association significant sums of money.

As a director who's zone innocently moved and passed the motion, unaware of the legal ramifications, would you still vote in favor of it?

Your duty to the corporation's best interests would have to take over in this case - and it is what your members would expect you to do.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Morison

Again, you are misrepresenting what I am saying. The opinions, thoughts and desires of the membership are crutial to the successfull operation of the association. That said, implementing their wishes without being open to new information and investigation of options (also the duty of the directors) is extremely unwise.

As an example, a resolution comes from the floor of an AZM, and at the board meeting preceeding the AGM the resolution is shown to have CLEAR legal ramifications that would cost the association significant sums of money.

As a director who's zone innocently moved and passed the motion, unaware of the legal ramifications, would you still vote in favor of it?

Your duty to the corporation's best interests would have to take over in this case - and it is what your members would expect you to do.

YES... I would vote the why MY MEMBERSHIP had mandated me to.
Second if what your saying came to be... JUST because ONE ZD voted the mandate given him does not mean the resolution would not pass.

Then again it could aways be voted on again at a later date... so that ZD could convay the NEW info to his ZONE so they could make a change.

AGAIN at my first AGM R. Barrow vote his mandate... even thou he wanted to vote the other way. I gain a lot of respect for Richard that day.

At present this board give ZD letters of Reprimand because they follow the mandate give to them by there zone.

YOU not going to play ball, like we want, we are going to kick you out. There take that....

anyway... this has NOTHING to do with are we going to have NATS in 2006.

ONE last question thou Keith.... the Profits from the Glider Worlds that you ran.... did MAAC get all of that $$$?