Ron

The key point in your last post was "us" not supporting " ... what MAAC represents". That is the crux of most discussions here ... what is it we as members (ALL members not a select few on either side of the fence) want MAAC to represent. Virtually everyone posting here is very free in using statements like "Most members only join for the insurance... or only a minority are against competition) when in reality no-one knows what most people want or don't want. If the numbers at the NATS are around 200 registrants in the most populated zone(s) of the country WRT MAAC members is that a success or failure or does it even matter. Do numbers of registrants even define success or failure? To me one gauge of success would be spectator turnout as that is how we attract new members.

What is it that upsets me? The ability to effect change is shot down at every turn through procedural means, or active attacks on members proposing change. While of course I do not have the details, a ZD info'd everyone that he would not seek re-election due to MAAC "politics", he further indicated that he would be happy to help trying to word future bylaw proposals and/or other submissions as most are defeated by being ruled out of order. Another ZD was formally chastised by 10 of the directors for unilaterally issuing a statement re insurance that was not correct (apparently at his "worst" Sharp only ever had 5 directors mad at him at one time). All the above sounds to me like anti-MAAC activities and none of it originated here.

For the record I hope everyone has a good time at the NATS (as I do for every formal and informal flying event), that new friendships are made, that volunteers are duely recognized for their efforts and that the event brings new members to the fold.

JH