Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

A wee birdy delivered this to me today. Must be meant for all if I'm in the loop.

Toss it out for discussion:

-------------------- this is the Petition heading:

Petition to the Directors of MAAC
We, the undersigned MAAC members believe that the resolution to terminate the membership of Chuck Smith should be ruled out of order by the President of MAAC for the following reason.
By-laws are not retro active, when by-law # 9 came into effect March 19, 2006 every member of MAAC effectively had a clean slate. Because of this, the action taken by the MAAC Board of Directors can not be justified.
To verify that bylaws are not retro active, a simple phone call can be made to the not for profit section of Corporations Canada
at 1-866-333-5556

Name (print) Signature MAAC # Date

---------------------the following form letter came with the following instructions:

"I've also attached a letter that IF you wish you could fax or email to the address below.

Chuck has worked hard for the Southwest Zone, it is now time for the ZONE to help him



From what I understand this new by-law give the board the power to kick anyone out of MAAC for whatever reason they wish. Today it is Chuck, TOMORROW it could be YOU!!!"

------------- the actual form letter:

Michel Duchesneau
Manager, Compliance and Preliminary Enquiries
Corporations Canada

Dear Sir:

I would like to lodge a complaint in regards to the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada of which I am a member. My complaint is about two new by-laws brought into effect at the Annual General Meeting held on March 19, 2006.

1) Voting practices of the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada, File number 052091-8,
The by-laws that Corporations Canada pre-approved, state, section 37(1) Each director of a National Organization Zone shall represent all members within the zone by exercising voting powers on their behalf. The zone director shall have the number of votes represented by the total number of members within the zone except for zone members who represent themselves at the Annual General Meeting and where open or closed proxies have been so presented.

2) Section 9 Termination of membership.

Any membership may be terminated by special resolution by the Board of Directors.

These two by-laws approved by the membership March 19, 2006 give the Board of Directors powers, which far exceed the authority any Board of Directors should have. Consequentially they have been used in a vindictive manner against one Charles Smith, also a member of the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada.


Complaint number 1. The Model Aeronautics Association of Canada is a nation wide organization. At the time of the Annual General Meeting it had about 6500 paid members. With the voting system as above, if 3249 members would have made the trip to Ottawa from all across Canada, the 3251 votes left in the 13 Board of Directors hands would have had enough votes to out vote the membership that attended the meeting. The motion to remove Mr. C Smith’s membership was not brought up, or was noticed given to any voting member before the March 19 meeting. This shows the above voting system has flaws, when votes are held by Board Members and used to vote on items not given notice of.

Complaint number 2:
Mr. Smith was not given notice of this action prior to the vote. So he was not in attendance to defend himself. It seems out of place to me that a new by-law of such magnitude just happened to be approved at this Annual General Meeting just in time to vote on Mr. Smiths removal from the Association. It seems to me that Mr. Smith should first have a chance to defend himself, and second that a non-involved person be the arbitrator to the outcome. The fact that removing Mr. Smith’s membership in the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada will remove his ability to take part in the hobby of his choice. In this by-law the board of directors now has the power to remove anyone’s membership for any reason. NO reason or just cause given.

Under these conditions, approval by Corporations Canada of these by-laws must not happen.

ISGUNN

Well,this really should not suprise anyone.I'm sure that since there was ample knowledge by the membership of the proposed changes and that since the now former SW ZD chose to resign his position,it was of no suprise.Considering the recent history with the expelled gentleman and that the motion came from the floor and he is still in his appeal period,this pitition may in itself be out of line.Mr.Smith is a big boy and should,if he chooses,challenge the expulsion.3000 vote to have him removed cann't be all wrong.
Ian Gunn
MAAC 25307

bbbair

I'm with Ian on this - there is no surprize that such an action has been done, it is in keeping with the normal principles of operation that he (CSmith) employs. Intimidation; as we have seen on a regular basis.

Rather than keep things within the MAAC community and appeal to the BOD he is trying to push his weight around with a higher authority - Good Luck.

To me - this just is extra proof as to why his membership was terminated.

However; you must admit - he has a very dedicated group of followers - however misguided they may be - they do support their chosen one -

I wonder if they'll appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada once this bid fails? ... things that make you go Hmmmmmmm....

jhelps

Still waiting for the fat lady to sing ... Suspect it will be a while!!

JH

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

HMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wonder which one of the alter egos wrote this one up.

sivlE

Yikes, are they serious about this statement? If thats the case then we should let all the prisoners out of jail whenever there is a change to the laws, then they could all have a clean slate. This is the kind of stuff that got him expelled in the first place and some people actually support him???????

jhelps

Poorly re-worded famous quote "When the Nazi's came for the ..."


Once again Red Herring after Red Herring!!!

Membership in the club (any club for that matter) is not a right. Frankly the board has always had the power to "remove" someone by simply refusing their application at the beginning of the year (I suggested this in another thread). The bylaws then and now allow people who share an interest in aviation and who agree to abide by the bylaws to join upon acceptance by persons appointed by the board. While this has been automatic over the past years, this does not mean it must in future. There are no "rights" to association.

As to the actual complaint I would be surprised if Corp Canada made any ruling. They can only rule on the correctness of the bylaw, not how a corporation applies it. The bylaw in question is very similar to many others that govern clubs and is designed to allow the membership to remove undesirables. I bet Corp Canada lets it stand and suggests that any recourse should be through the courts. One hopes we do not go that route as the headlines would be murder" Chuck chucked for not playing nice with his toy planes" That will paint us in an excellent light!

As this is a free country and one has the right to face their accusers hopefully if Corp Canada gets involved they will identify where the complaints are coming from and the house can be cleaned once and for all!!!!


JH

Applehoney

My Feedback: (3)

>TOMORROW it could be YOU!!!"

Only if 'YOU' give sufficient cause.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Personally, if I were in a similar position, at this point I would be thinking that maybe.......................juuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe, I had gone just a bit too far and come to the conclusion that it's time to move from offence to defence?

I'd Cut my losses, put my hat in my hand, quietly and without fanfare, approach the board with no supporters, no lawyers, no chips, and find out what it will take to get my membership back? "Winning" some vague battle would not be worth potentially not being able to fly toy airplanes anymore. The option to stir up further sheeeite with the board and membership seems like a poor plan. I'd be telling my friends to back off, shut up and go fly, let me deal with this.

I can tell ya Mr Smith, from personal experience, that the hobby is much more funner again since I decided to get out of the political arena. I dare you to try it because it really isn't worth it. Hopefully, it isn't too late? Friendly advice.

Rann

I had a nice long chat with a gent at the sportsplex about a block from my house today... in between his DLG flights. He is not a member of MAAC (didn't know it existed!) though he admitted the idea of MAAC's insurance sounded awfully nice to him! Yet his ignorance of MAAC certainly didn't hinder his enjoyment of his hobby

True Sharpy01, he should listen to your sage advice.... but Mr Smith doesn't NEED MAAC membership to fly his toy planes! It just is easier to get insurance! (I will bite my tongue about Mr Smith and insurance)

Ultimately, Mr Smith and his followers signed their membership renewals(how many times???) without due regard for this little gem:

That just wiped out the clean slate defence.... especially as by their submitting resolutions from their AZM to change confidential preliminary draft bylaws before they were even finalized... let alone passed as bylaws, it shows they knew full well what the intent of the new bylaws they are now complaining about were . Claiming ignorance and "clean slate" is passing so much moonshine!

Having dealt with Industry Canada on related matters, I really don't think any such petition will gain any traction. The voting method , I know, had been discussed at length with Industry Canada. The pre-approval of the bylaws was done to ensure that the wording was correct so that the constitution reform could be finished for a while and we could take a breather to get other business done.

Pretty sad that he STILL will not address the real issues and seeks to avoid them AGAIN.

bbbair

I like Jeff's point here.

What this tells ME. Is that Chucky and Co. can blow all the hot air and money at Corp. Canada that they want.

They just might even get a favourable opinion (but I doubt it), and when Chucky and his followers attempt to register for the 2007 season their memberships in a private association (know as MAAC) can be REFUSED!!!

Yep! the world is a bright and shiney place, it's all in how you look at it.

DSLarkin

The voting issue is really irrelevant. MAAC has used this method of voting at the AGM for quite a number of years now. It isn't perfect but at least it is readily workable. Had we had a pure one-man-one-vote system then the Zone Directors would have had to scurry around getting proxies to ensure a quorum and to ensure that their zone's point of view was respected. There would still have been enough votes there to take care of any likely insurgency from any one zone.

jhelps

I have to disagree here Dave. Virtually every corporation in which I have shares uses the one person one vote concept and sends out their notice of the AGM with ballots specifically listing the question(s) I am to vote on and a BOD recommendation as to which way to vote (if any). While I can sign an open proxy it is ONLY associated with the questions to be put to vote. This is to prevent what happens so often in MAAC, new issues raised from the floor which the general membership is not aware of, and a vote cast on my behalf on an issue I know nothing about!!! Indeed I suspect my vote (remember in MAAC I do not have to sign an open proxy, the ZD gets it automatically) was included in the ones to remove Chuck from the organization permanently. While I believe some sort of censure was/is in order I would never have voted for a permanent ban.

Can you tell I HATE the proxy system?

Jeff

DSLarkin

Replying to Jeff

I'm not keen on the current proxy system either. But we tried to introduce either one man one vote or a voting delegate system but the Board would have none of it. It's too much work for a volunteer to take on. They've tried it and they didn't like it.

If you had one man one vote I doubt if you would get a quorum without horrendous efforts by the Zone Directors (and, yes, collecting proxies). Go to your club meeting and ask how many people have put in a proxy vote for a MAAC AGM. I asked at a club meeting the other day, when your point was raised, and the result was that nobody had ever put in an AGM proxy.

All MAAC members do get advance notice in the MAAC mag. I don't have the figures on the closed proxies for the recent AGM for but believe it might have been around 80, if that. (Fred Messacar would know). Out of 12,000 plus that's not very many. Modellers are very seriously disinterested in what they perceive as politics. It's not like a commercial company where your share earnings are at stake. Yes there are serious issues but the membership rarely gets involved. I've belonged to a lot of clubs and the usual items discussed rarely go further than the cost and frequency of cutting the grass. Or perhaps a bulk buy of fuel.

Talking to those who ran MAAC about 15 years ago - they had a hell of a time getting a quorum and making MAAC work. Imperfect though the current voting system is, at least it carries the mail.

Anyway I stand by my point that no matter which AGM voting system was used the result of this particular vote would have been the same. There are just too many people who are upset. And the current tactic (if true) of trying to go through Corporation Canada and get up a petition isn't going help.

adaptabl

Who is behind the petition? Anyone with enough concern should not be willing to take ownership. I would bet it's someone from our SW zone.

wegie pilot

I think we all know who is behind this petition,I'll bet its one of Chuck's friends. I am sure it's some one in the SW zone, near Windsor.

jhelps

Perhaps it's time for the SW zone to sort out it's own problems. Why not call a special zone meeting and have it out amoungst yourselves and then have your ZD approach the BOD with a consolidated position?

These small group approaches directly to the BOD are not going to help win friends.

JH

sivlE

I really don't think that the SW zone has any problems as everyone thinks. Our problem has been removed. Our zone is full of great clubs and great guys and very active with events and doing things for the community. There are freindships that can not be destroyed by bad PR and unfortunatley some that have. Yes we have been in the spotlight, but one persons conduct can not/ should not stereotype an entire zone. There are still a few followers of the old ZD that are upset for their own reasons and are trying to do what they think is needed. I don't really think that a special meeting of the SW zone would resolve anything other than stir up all of the mud that is settling down. I AM PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SW ZONE
John Mainwaring
MAAC# 49738

wegie pilot

To"Jhelps", if we had a zone director we could have a meeting, but we don't and don't know when we will ever have one. I don't think any one in the zone really wants to step into a hornets nest. I know I would'nt do it. This fiasco sure has given the SW zone a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths. I hope that we can straighten this mess some day. I have even heard that there are certain people that are not going to be allowed to fly at one or more events in the SW zone. This is getting ridiculous.

jhelps

Truely unfortunate and I wish you luck in resolving the issue.

As a reminder ... I doubt too many (if any) are painting the entire zone in a bad light because of the actions of a few.

I protested strongly when that was happening to this zone and I feel the same for the SW zone.

Hopefully once the flying starts the BS will die down.

cheers

JH

swampstik

I;m proud to be a SW zone member and a good member of MAAC.
Permanent cencorship of Chuck Smith is not acceptable; membership with stipulations would be . Also; a notice of intentions would have been the honourable way .
Are members of the corporation allowed to sit in on the court of appeal hearings?
Roger Damore

Applehoney

My Feedback: (3)

Roger,

If you take the trouble to read back through all the voluminous postings on this site and RCC regarding Chuck Smith's actions, and those of the Board, you will find that he had ample 'notice of intentions', and 'membership stipulations' are/were already in force under the terms of MAAC membership.

It is apparent that he had numerous warnings regarding his conduct on and off the Board, even to a formal notice delivered by registered letter. As a Zone Director he was fully aware of the Constitution, of his obligations to the organisation, the Board and his Zone, to the necessity to protect confidential information, requirements to follow procedures, etc.; he obviously chose to ignore all such, and indeed continued to escalate his actions to the point that the Board and membership had no other recourse than to remove him from Office and from MAAC.

He brought his dismissal entirely upon himself. He had ample prior opportunies to redress the situation and chose not to do so. So be it.

Now it's time to move on. The SW Zone reputation has been unfairly tainted by the actions of a very few, but such do not reflect upon the vast majority of upstanding members, a fact which I am sure is widely recognised by all others across the country.

Jim_McIntyre

From where I sit, as I plan my events for this summer (lesse Chatham scale, Leamington scale, London scale, Kitchener scale ...), I think the other zones could learn a from the SW zone.... my zone included.

swampstik

Dismissal from directorship agreed;
Membership in maac with stipulations yes.
Total banishment is practiced in certain tribes of africa and the arctic and other parts of the world remote from society.
;where the individual is totaly separated from the social milieu where he goes off and dies from separation from life as he knows it..I don't think that we as a fun loving group of modeling enthusiasts want to do that.
We are not like that ; we are a forgiving people.
Allowing Chuck Smith to remain in the group shows our true spirit.
Does the collective population really want to banish him from the hobby that he truly loves.
Surely ;out of 12000 members there must be 6000 who still feel that he should be allowed to be a member with stipulations.
Not only that, of those 6000,surely some are his friends.
And in the SW zone,he has a large number of friends who think he is an OK guy (maybe a little to much outspoken and a rebel)
200 who voted for him.
Roger Damore

Ed Smith

You speak for yourself.

Don't you just love these individuals who pop up at the end of it all and demonstrate their ignorance of the facts.
My experience with your EX ZD goes back seven years. Nothing changed since then. He deserved what he got and good riddance.

Ed S