[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by cf100

If a fund is set up, then it should be accessible by all MAAC members for any model airplane endeavour, even if no competition is involved like developing an r/c system for a special needs child.

Any surplus, give it to a kids charity.

..... love him or hate him, great example. ( I do declare my love for him though )

The Charity idea for surplus, surplus....... is a great way to keep the funds from growing too much as to grab the attention of the not-for-profit- police.

Besides the obvious good this would do for those in need, It's PR gold.

Could be as simple as distributing the appropriate percentage of excess surplus to the ZD to donate on behalf of MAAC to "Ronald McDonald House" or "Children's Wish Foundation" within the each zone.

That will definitely be added to the next draft as it churns......

[Applehoney]

>Don't like the idea of assigning a name to a national fund of this nature. That in itself is nothing more than a lightning rod as everyone in every zone can come up with a list of names of past great members who are worth of recognition.

None of whom presumably bequeathed $100,000 to MAAC, as held in McGillivrays' name

[gothicbunny]

If McGillivray bequeathed it specifically for the start of such a fund, then I could see adding his name to it.

[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by mjohnson

I may be a bit naive of my interpretaion of these numbers but the long and the short of it is MAAC has more than sufficient funds even for the rainest of rainy days. Anything short of a thermo nuclear war imho.

Given this VERY positive cash/asset position it is of my opinion, as I have stated before, that MAAC get back to it's roots with hearty support of our national teams and promotion within Canada of grassroots competition. I do not think that 25% of the total yearly budget is out of line.

The competition/promotion funding may not necessarily have to be determined/tied to surpluses, instead maybe make it a hard liability to be included in yearly budgeting. Just another concept following your doctrine Marc. As I say, fine tuning to follow.

Only my opinion.

Good positive thinking.

Any Rainy Day fund or funds that currently exist................. are for a rainy day and not to be given away or spent.

The proposal is based on a encouraging our subsequent boards to run a lean mean, membership machine and if they do, and if we can help grow the membership numbers, the available funds for EVERYONE will also grow.

If we entrench preferential treatment into the distribution of such a fund, you will also entrench division ............and round and round we go.

IF, this is an issue, you look at raising the available cap totals to the two categories, which provides the opportunity for the FAI guy to get a stab at it as well as the IMAC guy if he is so motivated.

....... fair.

The idea is to provide equal access to any member. Some may be more motivated than others, which is likely, and will likely wind up getting more, but without the stigma attached. Why would you, an FAI guy, want to limit access to another member who does something different. You must release the bias that what you or someone else does is somehow more worthy or important that what someone else chooses to do or we won't get over the hump.

[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by gothicbunny

If McGillivray bequeathed it specifically for the start of such a fund, then I could see adding his name to it.

He didn't and I believe the donation was wisely used to set up a trust fund to establish formal scholarship/bursary program of some form. (somebody must have the detail on that here)

.... a great idea by the way and another place where excess/unused surplus funds could be channeled.

[Morison]

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

.......again, don't understand the problem with individuals?

In context I was just saying that a single member looking for funding assistance to attend a non-FAI worlds would have a tough time proving value. (I'd say the same of a single member team heading to a FAI worlds)

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

The assumption that you make is only those heading to the "big competitions" deserve a chunk after some form of selection trials? Why can't a talented young flyer with limited resources who has an interest in knocking a Chad Northeast off his post be recognized by his zone as good enough to warrant some support...

I guess the question is one of how the 'bar' is set for funding. If you don't have some measurable standard then it quickly becomes a matter of if you like the guy or not. (I'd also support minimum standards for all teams to be funded, particularly on an ongoing basis.)

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

Don't like the idea of assigning a name to a national fund of this nature. That in itself is nothing more than a lightning rod as everyone in every zone can come up with a list of names of past great members who are worth of recognition.

Being fair, and meaning no disrespect, I think McGillivray is a bit of a stand-out case. Don't hold the fact he was an 'FAI type' against him.

[Applehoney]

>I think McGillivray is a bit of a stand-out case. Don't hold the fact he was an 'FAI type' against him.

Not just FAI. A lifetime contestant, Jack flew and excelled in at least two FAI categories through the early/mid years but he also flew intensively in many other non-FAI activities in most all classes of freeflight relevant to the time; in later years he consistently topped the fields in outdoor and indoor scale, RC Texaco, etc. Recognised as a master craftsman and innovator - he was flying folding-wing power models long before such became 'developed' in the FAI world ... he was a helluva nice guy who always had time to assist others. It was an honour to be numbered amongst his friends.

In fact it would be very appropriate if his bequest was used, in his name, to promote and further participation in competition activites within MAAC

[Sharpy01]

Originally Posted by Morison

Being fair, and meaning no disrespect, I think McGillivray is a bit of a stand-out case. Don't hold the fact he was an 'FAI type' against him.

Keith..... not holding anything against anyone. Didn't really know what or who Mr McGillivray was till word of a his donation. No disrespect intended. I'm sure he was a great guy, good friend and apparently a great craftsman. Suspect the funds he donated still has his name attached, which makes sense and I leave it in the board's hands on how it is used.

..... but to name a the fund I propose after him still does not help or run parallel to the overall intent of the fund. Lotsa great guys, current and departed in our membership and impossible to rank or pick one out for this type of initiative. IMO

[Morison]

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

... but to name a the fund I propose after him still does not help or run parallel to the overall intent of the fund.

Fair enough.
I don't agree with you, but it wouldn't be the first time for that and it isn't something I'd go to battle for.

[agl892]

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

.......again, don't understand the problem with individuals?
The assumption that you make is only those heading to the "big competitions" deserve a chunk after some form of selection trials?

Why can't a talented young flyer with limited resources who has an interest in knocking a Chad Northeast off his post be recognized by his zone as good enough to warrant some support...........not to compete at a "world event", but rather to get him to the team trials where he has a shot at making the next step so we don't see the same 1/2 dozen year after year, after year?

Marc, you do realize I have to travel and attend the team trials out of my own pocket just like every other competitor? I am at risk of not making the team due to illness, travel issues, equipment failures, crashing, bad flying...just like everyone else that attends. The competition is wide open, anyone who wants to can try out. No one in my history has ever been turned away from flying in the team trials.

So you would propose to fund someone's trip to the team trials, who has no qualification criteria, other than being recommended by their peers? So if that person does not make the team they would have received funding where a person who made the team did not? This is, as or more unfair than the very funding we have now that you are looking to change.

I was once that kid you make reference to...I flew the Brandon Nats in '94. I was the kid from Sask. that no one knew, no one had heard of, flying a small .40 size plane against guys with decked out pattern planes. I got to see the best in the country at the time trying out for the team, the legends...to me those guys were on pedestals. It was a big moment for me, and I push today to keep the F3A team selection process open, and at public events like a Nationals (even if they are not what they were) so the kids of today can have the same experience. Eventually I earned my place on a team, some 7 years later. It would have been a mistake for MAAC to have funded any of my road to making my first team, and it would be a mistake to do so for others. You only encourage an atmosphere of playing favourites with that model, instead of requiring people to earn what they seek.

The next kids are coming along, young Ethan Chariandy is now going to the World Championships this year in South Africa. FAI F3A now allows each team to field a junior pilot as well as three seniors, so we brought him into the team trials and even though he was not in the top 3, he was the highest finishing junior, and will get funded along with the rest of the seniors to South Africa.

Ethan is a kid that has earned his funding, I first flew with him in 2008 at the Pattern Nats in Ontario, he was so nervous he would get physically ill. Since then he has attended many US Nats at the same time I have and many other contests, and his improvement was amazing in 3 short years. I am very proud to have him on our team in South Africa and look forward to teaching him all my tricks, so one day he can be the first Canadian F3A World Champion.

Chad Northeast