[RC_MAN]

big jar , keep up the fine job

[JimMoss]

Originally Posted by 50%300SFlyer

The MAAC notice refers specifically to the events put on by the CAC.

This subject was also discussed at the recent AGM Jim. Our out going MAAC President made it very clear, that the insurance coverage was still in effect at all other MAAC sanctioned events, and private fields used by MAAC members.

That's is where the problem comes in Mike ......

The way I am reading it is that if the CAC (lets say all members are MAAC members) runs an event you will not be covered ....... Regardless of the fact you are flying on a MAAC sanctioned (or chartered or registered Just for you DD ) field.

Now if Uncle Fred (Also a MAAC member) decided to run an event on a MAAC sanctioned (or chartered or registered) field, it would be covered.

Maybe I am to thick to see the difference, but what is the difference between Uncle Fred and the CAC?

[Randy Brown]

The Board like Uncle Fred better then they liked Gerry Shaw maybe?

Originally Posted by JimMoss

That's is where the problem comes in Mike ......

The way I am reading it is that if the CAC (lets say all members are MAAC members) runs an event you will not be covered ....... Regardless of the fact you are flying on a MAAC sanctioned (or chartered or registered Just for you DD ) field.

Now if Uncle Fred (Also a MAAC member) decided to run an event on a MAAC sanctioned (or chartered or registered) field, it would be covered.

Maybe I am to thick to see the difference, but what is the difference between Uncle Fred and the CAC?

[Dave Larkin]

The point is really a technical one. The event was denied coverage because sanction had been denied. Presumably if a sanction had not been requested, and therefore not denied, MAAC modellers could have competed with their MAAC insurance coverage in force. The coverage for the field owners would have been there if the field had been already registered with MAAC. But if no sanction had been requested, then the extra coverage for event officials would not have been in place.

But anything I suggest on this is subject to correction by the MAAC Insurance Chairman.

[Guest]

The intent of the policy provided to MAAC is to provide liability coverage to the members of MAAC when engaged in modeling activities encouraged and endorsed by the association from grass roots activities in farmer’s fields to sanctioned world championship events.

I think this makes it very clear....if the association (board I presume) does not support/endorse what you are doing you are not covered.....so you better make sure that your flying activities are supported by the association.

I would suggest an email to the BOD outlining every flying activity you plan, each weekend for approval

The thing with the CAC is that the association encourages and endorses competitive events all around the country....yet not this one? So that begs the question that if you the organizer are not in favour with the board...your flying event is not encouraged or endorsed by them, hence no coverage.

Going back a bit now...

To my knowledge the BOD did not have power to remove a member from MAAC previous to this AGM? Correct? If not ignore the below, but I read through the bylaws and see no mention of member removal.

So I find it very discomforting that now with this new found power, the BOD removes a member based on bad acts PRIOR to having said authority! While we are at it, lets toss our Rick Reid! or any number of other members who cost the association money! Brandon Nats folks...gone! I am no lawyer but I dont believe this is common practise anywhere....give me a break. Getting removed for something you did before the bylaw was passed? What are supposed to have ESP and see the future now? With this new precedent set anything could be put in place at AGM's to affect anything you have ever done as a member. Think of the chaos if Revenue Canada did this with its tax laws! haha

Forget the people involved for two seconds..and think of the precedents and principles that are being set. Bad ethics at work IMO.

Re-instate Chuck as a member...now that the rules are in force further transgressions can be dealt with....dont vote in a rule then punish those who broke it without any knowledge of its potential future existence.

[Morison]

Originally Posted by Randy Brown

The Board like Uncle Fred better then they liked Gerry Shaw maybe?

Do people not realise the incredible arrogance (and paranoia) involved in thinking that the association as a whole makes decisions based on their diskike of you?
If it's true, does Randy's statement not beg the question of WHY the board, a full third of which are brand new, dislikes Chuck or Gerry? (I'm not saying that is the case btw)

[sivle]

Chad I don't disagree with all of your post but I must say that the issue with Chuck was dealing with the past AND current and ongoing issues. Anybody can speculate on what happened but the BOD knows the facts and I believe them to have acted proffesionally and within the best interests of the MAAC. It is aesy for people to sit back and question decissions that have been made without all of the facts. I was at our Exec meeting the other night and observed that there are a lot of issues and matters that have to be dealt with in our little old club that require some business skills, ethical decisions and organization. It dawned on me that the MAAC Exec have to deal with a lot more issues and on a much grander scale. Without them, the organization would be out of control with no rules or procedures for people to follow. My hat is off to those who dedicate their time and energy to protect and manage our common interests in the hobby. Just MHO

[sivle]

Originally Posted by Morison

Do people not realise the incredible arrogance (and paranoia) involved in thinking that the association as a whole makes decisions based on their diskike of you?
If it's true, does Randy's statement not beg the question of WHY the board, a full third of which are brand new, dislikes Chuck or Gerry? (I'm not saying that is the case btw)

From my observations it is this attitude which you speak of Morison, that has caused a disconnect with some members. They actually have been led to believe that MAAC is run by a bunch of bullish school kids and have some kind of click going. The unfortuate part of it is that as gown adults they buy into that nonsense.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by sivle

Chad I don't disagree with all of your post but I must say that the issue with Chuck was dealing with the past AND current and ongoing issues. Anybody can speculate on what happened but the BOD knows the facts and I believe them to have acted proffesionally and within the best interests of the MAAC.

Regardless of the particular situation, the BOD has set a precedent that any future by-laws put in place are in force for actions etc that occured before that by-law was in force!

Justifying that action for a particular situation is a slipperly slope....future BOD's will forget about this and could use such a precedent to further their own goals....the outcome of this is unpredictable. The indivuduals involved in this today are irrelevant for those in the future who have to deal with the precedents we set.

Its completely unfair to anyone/everyone to expect them to behave according to rules that are not known to them and may occur at anytime in the future. Its like being kicked out of a club for flying over the pits 10 years ago when there was no pit overfly rule....it just doesnt make any sense.

Its not professional, its not ethical under any circumstances.

Anyways, I have said my peace, no more from me....I find it highly unlikely that anyone will see my point as from what I read most are focused on the people and not the overall meaning to MAAC of what has transpired.
I have great fear now of saying too much public for a new bylaw/resolution/recommendation may come next year that I have just violated and my membership will be gone.

[KevinPerry]

Couldn't agree more ...

Well said Chad


KP