[filtr]

Why is the union comment / goverment comments brought in. I would like to here from both sides. I just see a lot of rumor mill stuff. Some one from the board of MAAC should come on and explain what really is the issue. Stop the rumor mill. This is not help MAAC. Remind me of years past.

[Michael in Toronto]

Originally Posted by Dave Larkin

Responding to Marc Sharpe,


There was a move to remove Clair from the Executive after the MAAC office fracas, but I'm told Clair set his lawyer on Ron and Ron folded.


Dave

You're saying that "Ron folded."

Does that mean MAAC money was paid for damages or a settlement?

If so, how much was paid, and were there any additional legal fees that MAAC had to pay?

Why was MAAC involved in such legal issues when they should have been concentrating on model aviation?



When can we as MAAC members finally be told all the truth about what has been going on?

[davidmc36]

Originally Posted by filtr

Why is the union comment / goverment comments brought in....

Because time after time unions, governments etc. have sworn innocence in the face of scrutiny only to be found out later to have done the very things they denied.

People have good reason to be suspicious.

[Dave Larkin]

Michael,

If you want to know what is going on, your first stop should be your Zone Director, not the internet.

However what I know, and it isn't first hand, is that, without authorisation, Clair Murray went to the MAAC office to 'sort it out'. Apparently as a result two of the staff quit. The Board and the rest of the Executive were not impressed and wanted to remove Mr Murray from the Executive. But apparently he threatened legal action and they backed off, paying his legal bills.

MAAC has never done business this way. Resorting to legal action is something Clair Murray introduced and nobody seemed to like it, though Ron Dodd appears to have picked up on the idea.

There are much better ways of conflict resolution and you will see recommendations to that effect coming in from the Zone Meetings for consideration at the AGM.

MAAC has been through a bad patch, but with a change of people in its management we should see a more stable and acceptable leadership. At the Zone Meeting this fall, Mr Murray was replaced.

MAAC had recently introduced a two year term for some of its leaders. Personally, I think this has not worked out and believe MAAC should go back to a one-year term. It is more work for the Zone Directors and more hassle, but nothing like the hassle of having to actively get rid of someone in mid-term, whether Zone Director or President, if they just don't pan out.

If the rumours are correct, MAAC has spent some $20,000 on legal fees in the last couple of years. Nothing like this has ever happened before and I think it is a disgrace, if true. It would be simply bad and irresponsible management.

Dave

[4*60]

Thanks for some info. Our zone d is not informing us of this stuff. We are suspicious and would like to know where our funds are going.

[Toriginal]

Minor details

[Toriginal]

Originally Posted by davidmc36

Because time after time unions, governments etc. have sworn innocence in the face of scrutiny only to be found out later to have done the very things they denied.

People have good reason to be suspicious.

Exactly. I agree.

The problem is less with paid jobs and worse with volunteers for the record.
Ahh it's all minor details. Volunteers come and go and always feel they deserve "perks" That's all back end stuff. If the front end is working and I get to fly, it's all good. I will still become a MAAC member when it is time, get my card hopefully and be able to fly with some of you. That's the bottom line.
I read this whole thing. I mean, I want to know what I am getting into (not a member yet). Trivia and drama sorry. It's the way of the world.

[Hadatom]

Originally Posted by Dave Larkin

Michael,

If you want to know what is going on, your first stop should be your Zone Director, not the internet.

However what I know, and it isn't first hand, is that, without authorisation, Clair Murray went to the MAAC office to 'sort it out'. Apparently as a result two of the staff quit. The Board and the rest of the Executive were not impressed and wanted to remove Mr Murray from the Executive. But apparently he threatened legal action and they backed off, paying his legal bills.

MAAC has never done business this way. Resorting to legal action is something Clair Murray introduced and nobody seemed to like it, though Ron Dodd appears to have picked up on the idea.

There are much better ways of conflict resolution and you will see recommendations to that effect coming in from the Zone Meetings for consideration at the AGM.

MAAC has been through a bad patch, but with a change of people in its management we should see a more stable and acceptable leadership. At the Zone Meeting this fall, Mr Murray was replaced.

MAAC had recently introduced a two year term for some of its leaders. Personally, I think this has not worked out and believe MAAC should go back to a one-year term. It is more work for the Zone Directors and more hassle, but nothing like the hassle of having to actively get rid of someone in mid-term, whether Zone Director or President, if they just don't pan out.

If the rumours are correct, MAAC has spent some $20,000 on legal fees in the last couple of years. Nothing like this has ever happened before and I think it is a disgrace, if true. It would be simply bad and irresponsible management.

Dave

MAAC has paid $ 20,000 on legal fees from membership money and noone knew about it !?!? And you are telling us to speak to our Zone Director ? Why can't we speak to the MAAC executive directly ? Hell, when did they know that stuff and why were we not informed ? The more I learn about MAAC the more disgusted I am.

[Dave Larkin]

Mike D,
All the Zone Directors are on the MAAC Board, and they should know just as much as the Executive. The Executive members are also elected from the Zone Directors. I'm with you on the transparency issue, but Ron Dodd made everything 'confidential'. Not the way we have ever done business before. This is not the way MAAC has ever been run before, and it is in the process of being corrected. Don't get angry at MAAC, just get mad at the people responsible.

I don't know which Quebec Zone you are in, but the Quebec Zones have two very fine Zone Directors who do an excellent job. In particular, Steve Woloz, the St Lawrence ZD has been very succesful in solving the ongoing problem that Quebec modellers had over the use of arable land for flying fields, something the Quebec Government used to forbid. This was a serious problem and he did a fantastic job.

Dave

[Dave Larkin]

I've been checking around, and this is what I now believe, from what people are prepared to tell me, or what they aren't prepared to tell me.

What has been going on in MAAC? You may remember that Richard Barlow was president of MAAC for about five years. He was on a one-year term, which was the norm, and the Board must have been happy with him because they kept re-electing him. However two years ago he decided to stand down.

By this time most MAAC officials (except the Executive) were on two-year terms, after changes to MAAC By Laws. Ron Dodd was elected to replace Richard. Now there appears to have been some ill feeling because, when the old executive offered to provide a seamless handover by getting the new and old executives together at the MAAC office, this was turned down flat.

Now the old executive consisted of Richard, President, Claude Melbourne V-P, and Roy Rymer and Walt Chikmaroff executive members. Note that all but Walt were from Ontario, and this may have rankled with some.

Before the AGM, someone suggested that MAAC should change its credit card for one which offered points, thereby effecting a saving. Richard agreed and got authorization from the executive to proceed with the replacement. These credit cards are guaranteed by a bond in the form of a GIC – for $25K. Richard asked the MAAC Treasurer to take this in hand, and, of course cash-in the old GIC from the first card, when that was scrapped. The new card was never used, by anybody. On the Executive at the time, apart from Richard, were Claude Melbourne, Walt Chikmaroff and Roy Rymer.

The new card arrived, and, as planned, it was not in Richard's name. He handed it over to Ron Dodd, who promptly cut it up. At some point Ron was made aware that the new card should really have been authorized by the whole Board. One would expect that he would then have got that authorization from the Board. After all, it wasn't a contentious issue. Instead he waited until the next AGM when he held an in-camera meeting of the Board, accusing Richard of financial impropriety! Richard was not allowed to be present to defend himself.

Ron was not due for re-election last April, so he stayed on as President, although there had been considerable turmoil under his leadership. The new elections put Claude Melbourne and Roy Rymer back on the Executive, along with Regis Landry. Presumably Ron found this not to his taste as he then widened the accusations to include Claude and Roy, for aiding and abetting Richard's supposed financial impropriety, by authorizing the new card. Note that Walt Chikmaroff, who had been on the executive at the time, was not accused. Why?

I understand there was only one meeting of the executive since the April 2012 AGM.

I'm told Ron Dodd has spent some $20K of MAAC's money on legal fees. If true, some of this was spent on Clair Murray, but most was spent, I believe, in the pursuit of his attack on Richard, Claude and Roy, . The credit card event itself cost MAAC no money. No money was lost or misspent, other than on legal fees.

Ron also appointed a committee of two to look into the allegations and recommend action. In their investigation they never contacted any of those who Ron Dodd accused. I understand that the majority of the Board did not accept their report. Presumably this is what precipitated Ron's resignation and his peculiar e-mail.

There has been some mention that a MAAC employee was threatened and forced to put the credit card change through. I very much doubt this – it makes no sense. If the employee had objected on the grounds that full Board approval was required, it would have been on no-brainer for the President or Executive to have then polled the Board. It wasn't an urgent or contentious matter.