RE: MAAC committee monster?
pretty much.
The board knows which committees are active, so maybe remove the inactive and concentrate more on doing what we can for the active ones.
New SIGS are going develop with or without MAAC recognition as a committee. Let them develop and mature, and sort out problems and differences before the "committee" level. Scale Aerobatic seems to be a good example as they were around and established prior to requesting committee status. Combat may be a good example of why not to get involved too early as it only created more problems within and wound up with 2 committees for combat, which seems kind of silly. In that instance, we as a board, none with any combat experience/interest were making decisions based on one side of a thorny issue. They needed more time to work out their own problems within their own SIG.
I was there when the "Insurance committee" was established. One director stood up and gave a 2 minute pitch for a member who "used to sell insurance" put up as the chair. I was the only one that didn't vote in favour as there was no guidlines or mandate established or even a simple reason for need established? Why did everyone else vote in favour? Dunno, probably because it may be one less thing for the Board to worry about? I don't think there really was a "committee" and now the last two chairs have been directors................so what is the point. Big issues like Insurance are why the executive meets 4 times a year and shouldn't be left to members who get shamed or tricked into putting their hand up at a Zone Meeting.