sivlE
Posts: 82
Joined: 8/15/2005 From: windsor,
ON, CANADA Status: offline
|
Palmer in response to your questions/ comments: 1- YOU stat the Chuck has breached confidence. WHAT did he do? At the last AZM which I attended both Gerry and Chuck indicated to the members present that they were asked by the BOD not to disclose issues concerning the changes in the by-laws until they were finalized and posted in the next MAAC mag. When I questioned Gerry on this and asked why he was breaching a confidence and gave him an example of why we shouldn't, he claimed that it was in the interest of being transparent and Chuck supported Gerry's statements on this topic and went on to read alloud what the changes were. This position of transparency also caused problems with the insurance issue. The funny thing is, is that I don't see Chuck being very transparent when dealing with his issues, not answering questions and logging to these forums as someone else in an effort to pat himself on the back. 2-Next you say he did not follow protocol for the financial submissions of what the NATS. HOWMANY times you have to be told CHUCK was NOT the Chairperson/CD of the 2005 NATS submitting the budget was NOT up to HIM. Are you trying to tell me that Chuck has no involement with CAC? Further more the bid for the NATS was presented by Chuck which did not include all of the required info. As I understand it, the proxies have not been turned in from the last AZM. Chuck is not following the rules why? 3-Chuck has offered to (along with Gerry the Chairperson of the 2005 NATS) to sit down with MAAC on about 4 different times, but the MAAC board does not seem to want to do that. I guess talking this out face to face is not what the board wants. The MAAC board has got a lawyer – and Gerry has got his lawyer, and the board has left it at that. IF the board cannot solve this problem what make you think YOU can. It is not up to me to solve this probem, nor do I desire to. This is between MAAC and Chuck, besides this is only your opinion on what MAAC did or did not say. I trust MAAC will resolve these issues properly and proffesionally. 4-Peter has told you SEVERAL times how the CAC came into existance, so now you do not believe him. I think he should know that. I value my friendship with Pete too much and to think that you even brought his name up on this forum bothers me, but I will say this. Pete is an upstanding individual with his direction in promoting the hobby only and making it the best it can be. I agree with Pete that the idea behind having an annual event in our area is a good one but I think that the way in which it was done was wrong. Pete knows my views on this and I know his. We are still great friends and it will remain that way. Your feable attempt to curcumvent this is in vain. For the record, Pete had nothing to do with the way in which the CAC was announced and was only in it for hobby. 5- The Zone Director has the right NOT to have his name dragged through the MUD just because you do not have the same point of view. The ZD is responsible and accountable for his actions. I have the right to ask any questions I like. End of story. 6-YOU have NEVER called Chuck to ask him ONE single question. AGAIN other board members do not answer question on public forms like this so WHY should CHUCK. Yes they do. Also, you found it prudent to post the CAC information on it so why can't Chuck answer a few questions. Mr. Barlow certainly trys to keep things straight on these forums. I think that Chuck can't answer the questions and that is why he tried to silence everybody with legal threats. Not a good leadership quality eh? 7- MAAC bashing well from were I stand it is YOU and Dennis that are MAAC bashing. HMMM that is an intersting allegation Palmer. You are wrong and I challenge you to show evidence of where I have bashed MAAC. It seems that you are trying very hard to try to sway peoples opinions but at the end of the day the truth will come out. 8-NOT only that but OUR club.... YOU club and mine is LOOSING it’s reputation because of this. I as ASST. ZD have had several people call me asking what is the problem in the Windsor Club, and have talked to the club president about this. If this is true, we know who to blame right? Our club has absolutley no involement in any of this and if anybody thinks otherwise, too bad. 9- Dennis has the right to ask for proxies. BUT the people should also be asking Chuck about his side of the story. It maybe too late for people to start asking Chuck questions, he has had ample opportunity to address these issues. Rather than pretend to be someone else he could of spent his time more productively. you are correct, Dennis does have the right. 10- From the club members I have talked to Dennis is LOSSING support. From the club members I have talked to, Chuck is LOSING support. You know Palmer, I really don't think that more than 1% even care about the politics and just want to fly and have fun. I don't really think that Dennis is looking for support but only trying to expose the crap that our ZD is doing. I am sure that Chuck has his supporters and believe everything he tells them. So what? 11- The CAC came into existence just like any other MAAC CLUB. ALL the CAC wants to do is have ONE event a year, plane and simple…. Here is chance for MAAC members to QUALIFY for the US Scale Masters, Top Gun and a new Scale JET event. WHATS wrong with that. AT NO COST TO MAAC, or the MAAC membership. Cac did not come into existance just like any other club, it was surrounded with manipulation and trying to undermine MAAC. The rest of your comment I agree with. 12- When I asked Richard Barlow WHY the MAAC Board was disapproving the CAC, all I got was “well we do not like the word Canadian in the name” The AMA does not seem to mine the US Scale Masters (which is has nothing to do with the AMA) I do not see the AMA getting upset about them using US in there name. Or how about the IMAA the International Miniature Aircraft Ass. The AMA did not through a hisses fit over that name. IF the average MAAC member cannot see by now that Dennis has a PERSONNEL problem with Chuck then they need glasses. It’s NOT the ZD job to SUPPORT the decisions of the board. It is the ZD job the support the decisions of the ZONE which were brought up at the ZONE MEETING which Chuck is doing. (again read what Richard Barlow wrote – and you will see that he says the same thing… that the ZD job is to VOTE the way his ZONE has given him direction at the ZONE meeting.) See Mr. Barlow's response 13- You were at the zone meeting and did not vote against or for ANY of the item brought up from the zone. So your right you vote did not count because you did not us it. Wrong, I did vote against and abstained on something else (can't remember what it was) but I made my concerns clear. Funny how they did not make it into the minutes though.
|