MAAC membership reasonable?
04-10-2005, 12:01 PM
#26
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: kenair
Businesses love the maac magazine, the membership subsidizes the magazine cost, if the cost of the magazine was paid for by the advertising, would those companies still pay the higher rates and support the mag - let's see and try it and remove the subsidy.
Businesses love the maac magazine, the membership subsidizes the magazine cost, if the cost of the magazine was paid for by the advertising, would those companies still pay the higher rates and support the mag - let's see and try it and remove the subsidy.
The ad rates being charged are about at the limit of what the stores are telling me that they can support (of course they'll tell me that) yet they are only about 20% of what a commercial mag would (should) charge. But the rate allows the 'small market' companies and mom and pop stores to have a good presence and to actually afford to be seen in front of 12,000 members!
Beyond that - the subsidy is really only paying a subscription rate of about $12/member. However there has to be a value of the dedicated space (62 pages an issue, minimum) MAAC gets for their message. That space would cost over $150,000 to buy! (at the current rates) or exposure value (in marketing valuation standards) of about $500,000. (Or would cost about $550,000 to buy from a 'commercial' magazine.
04-10-2005, 12:10 PM
#27
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: reo
At this point, the organization (MAAC) is very fortunate that membership is forced onto everyone that wishes to fly at a MAAC sanctioned club field in Canada. Imagine what would happen, if tomorrow, a national insurance company advertised that they were selling insurance policies to Canadian modelers direct for $25 per year! No one here is arguing that the insurance at $12 or $15 per person is STILL the bargain of the century, what is being questioned here is the money losing ventures that bleed the coffers of the other $700,000 or $800,000 per year.
At this point, the organization (MAAC) is very fortunate that membership is forced onto everyone that wishes to fly at a MAAC sanctioned club field in Canada. Imagine what would happen, if tomorrow, a national insurance company advertised that they were selling insurance policies to Canadian modelers direct for $25 per year! No one here is arguing that the insurance at $12 or $15 per person is STILL the bargain of the century, what is being questioned here is the money losing ventures that bleed the coffers of the other $700,000 or $800,000 per year.
For the record, the budget the board was struggling with was the 2005 one, which has an income level of under $600,000 and $145,000 in insurance, so the $800,000 'bleeding' figure is grossly over exaggerated.
Even at $75/member, the total income will not likely break $800,000
04-10-2005, 12:13 PM
#28
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: Morison
The thing is that one of the mandates of MAAC is to support an promote the hobby in Canada and one way they do this is by providing a cost effective (subsided) venue for manufacturers, retailers and events to reach the entire membership. You will note that there are no US retailers at all in the magazine, and that's not because they don't want in!
The ad rates being charged are about at the limit of what the stores are telling me that they can support (of course they'll tell me that) yet they are only about 20% of what a commercial mag would (should) charge. But the rate allows the 'small market' companies and mom and pop stores to have a good presence and to actually afford to be seen in front of 12,000 members!
Beyond that - the subsidy is really only paying a subscription rate of about $12/member. However there has to be a value of the dedicated space (62 pages an issue, minimum) MAAC gets for their message. That space would cost over $150,000 to buy! (at the current rates) or exposure value (in marketing valuation standards) of about $500,000. (Or would cost about $550,000 to buy from a 'commercial' magazine.
ORIGINAL: kenair
Businesses love the maac magazine, the membership subsidizes the magazine cost, if the cost of the magazine was paid for by the advertising, would those companies still pay the higher rates and support the mag - let's see and try it and remove the subsidy.
Businesses love the maac magazine, the membership subsidizes the magazine cost, if the cost of the magazine was paid for by the advertising, would those companies still pay the higher rates and support the mag - let's see and try it and remove the subsidy.
The ad rates being charged are about at the limit of what the stores are telling me that they can support (of course they'll tell me that) yet they are only about 20% of what a commercial mag would (should) charge. But the rate allows the 'small market' companies and mom and pop stores to have a good presence and to actually afford to be seen in front of 12,000 members!
Beyond that - the subsidy is really only paying a subscription rate of about $12/member. However there has to be a value of the dedicated space (62 pages an issue, minimum) MAAC gets for their message. That space would cost over $150,000 to buy! (at the current rates) or exposure value (in marketing valuation standards) of about $500,000. (Or would cost about $550,000 to buy from a 'commercial' magazine.
04-10-2005, 01:03 PM
#29
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
4*60
don't forget that there are also a minimum of 3 mailings that have to be made (by regular post) to the members. notice of zone meeting, notice of AGM (including notice of motions) and the results of the AGM. The cost of preparing and mailing these notices as regular mail would come very close to what is being spent on producing the magazine, which gives a lot more value than only the three mailings would. (There were some 25 pages of resolutions, recommendations and other AGM material sent to me this year, and it was a light year - I suspect that it would have cost $5/member at least on that mailing alone!
to view the $12/member as a subsidy is misleading - it IS better referred to as a subscription rate. (discounted at that- you can subscribe to the magazine for $24) At worst, it is paying for the content space.
All that said, the reality is that the association is spending $12 a member to communicate with them 6 times a year, $12 a member to show them what is happening across the country and to show them the variety of activities that happen as well as what events are happening in their area and close to them. The cost comparison MUST be made to the cost of the minimum mandatory mailings that the mag replaces. I suspect that the mag, in reality, might even be cheaper!
don't forget that there are also a minimum of 3 mailings that have to be made (by regular post) to the members. notice of zone meeting, notice of AGM (including notice of motions) and the results of the AGM. The cost of preparing and mailing these notices as regular mail would come very close to what is being spent on producing the magazine, which gives a lot more value than only the three mailings would. (There were some 25 pages of resolutions, recommendations and other AGM material sent to me this year, and it was a light year - I suspect that it would have cost $5/member at least on that mailing alone!
to view the $12/member as a subsidy is misleading - it IS better referred to as a subscription rate. (discounted at that- you can subscribe to the magazine for $24) At worst, it is paying for the content space.
All that said, the reality is that the association is spending $12 a member to communicate with them 6 times a year, $12 a member to show them what is happening across the country and to show them the variety of activities that happen as well as what events are happening in their area and close to them. The cost comparison MUST be made to the cost of the minimum mandatory mailings that the mag replaces. I suspect that the mag, in reality, might even be cheaper!
04-11-2005, 09:32 AM
#32
My Feedback: (130)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millet, AB, CANADA
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Hi Keith,
Thank you for taking the time to post to this thread.
Although it was interesting to see the numbers for 2005 in your post #27, this thread is focusing on 2006 when the new membership rates go into effect.
Assuming that we can continue to attract 12,000 memberships in 2006, the gross income from memberships in '06 will be $900,000 and after subtracting $128,000 for insurance there will still be almost $800,000 left over. Therefore, I stand by my numbers in my post #8.
Ron
Thank you for taking the time to post to this thread.
Although it was interesting to see the numbers for 2005 in your post #27, this thread is focusing on 2006 when the new membership rates go into effect.
Assuming that we can continue to attract 12,000 memberships in 2006, the gross income from memberships in '06 will be $900,000 and after subtracting $128,000 for insurance there will still be almost $800,000 left over. Therefore, I stand by my numbers in my post #8.
Ron
04-11-2005, 10:56 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Hi ron,
I tend to get pulled out of the woodwork when stuff like this gets bounced around, particularly when the magazine gets questioned
When it comes to budgeting, you can't assume 12,000 members at full pop. We have 12,000 members but we also have many juniors and we also have people who have bought 3 year memberships lasting through 2007 (2008 will be the first year that the full increase will be available)
It seems like that the number used for budgeting is about 10,500 memberships at full rate, although I'll wager the number of 3 year memberships will be higher this year. The highest budget income you would see for 2006 is about $775,000 and I'd suggest that budgeting anything over $700,000 would be rather optimistic.
When you do see the $775,000 in 2008, we will have likely seen the relative value of that $775,000 drop to about $745,000 in Today's dollars.
So, after insurance (145 for ALL of the insurance costs, not just member liability), in 2006 you'll have $555,000 before having a staff to administer the memberships or to provide any services such as event sanctioning, or any place to have an event listing. The board is committed to the idea of A) putting away something like $200,000 per year in contingency (I wish them luck in that effort) and returning money that they stripped form member services this year to balance the budget.
In 2006, staffing will be about 17% of the budget - I know that in my business my staffing is more than 17% of my budget and I bet it was in yours too! In 2006, Staffing, office and 'operating' costs will be only 37% - less than typical staffing costs (40% for staffing costs is not unusual in a business)
So, not only do we have a staff, but we have an already streamlined* staff and office that is about $260K in 2006 - leaving us with $295K of 'bleeding' room - and you don't get a magazine yet!
(*an office review by an independent company done in 1997 or 98 at a cost of some $8,000 clearly stated that the office was understaffed and that the staff was under paid for our TYPE of company operating in that area)
I tend to get pulled out of the woodwork when stuff like this gets bounced around, particularly when the magazine gets questioned
When it comes to budgeting, you can't assume 12,000 members at full pop. We have 12,000 members but we also have many juniors and we also have people who have bought 3 year memberships lasting through 2007 (2008 will be the first year that the full increase will be available)
It seems like that the number used for budgeting is about 10,500 memberships at full rate, although I'll wager the number of 3 year memberships will be higher this year. The highest budget income you would see for 2006 is about $775,000 and I'd suggest that budgeting anything over $700,000 would be rather optimistic.
When you do see the $775,000 in 2008, we will have likely seen the relative value of that $775,000 drop to about $745,000 in Today's dollars.
So, after insurance (145 for ALL of the insurance costs, not just member liability), in 2006 you'll have $555,000 before having a staff to administer the memberships or to provide any services such as event sanctioning, or any place to have an event listing. The board is committed to the idea of A) putting away something like $200,000 per year in contingency (I wish them luck in that effort) and returning money that they stripped form member services this year to balance the budget.
In 2006, staffing will be about 17% of the budget - I know that in my business my staffing is more than 17% of my budget and I bet it was in yours too! In 2006, Staffing, office and 'operating' costs will be only 37% - less than typical staffing costs (40% for staffing costs is not unusual in a business)
So, not only do we have a staff, but we have an already streamlined* staff and office that is about $260K in 2006 - leaving us with $295K of 'bleeding' room - and you don't get a magazine yet!
(*an office review by an independent company done in 1997 or 98 at a cost of some $8,000 clearly stated that the office was understaffed and that the staff was under paid for our TYPE of company operating in that area)
04-14-2005, 12:18 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Almonte,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
It seems to me that issues/discussions here have standard characteristics of any open debate when money is mentioned. The underlying feeder to all relevant or irrelevant comments ultimately revolve around money. If MAAC has to raise rates, it will spark ... well... everything you read here. Suddenly everyone pulls out the magnifying glass and starts to point fingers and say "what's this?" So, with this understanding, please note that if we all paid $100 to be a MAAC member, and have been for the last 10 years, then there would be no quibbles here. Nor at any big meetings concerning insurance, staff, magazines... or any of that. As the fee would cover everything, and nothing would have changed to spark all these discussions. So acknowledging that, we have to understand our current situation better. And there are solutions to these issues.
COST
I too agree that $75 is nothing to squawk about. There are, however, two ways we have to look at this. From the perspective of someone who fits the profile of the average MAAC member (45 year old male, owns house, family, job/retired) the cost in caparison to what you pay in driving a car - is not worth anyone to quibble about. And yes, compared to other hobbies, this one is very cheap. I mean, if we didn't all fly model planes, what would we be doing? Golf, boating, skiing, scuba diving, RV homes, .... unless you consider riding a bike a hobby, this is a lot of bang for the buck (bang does not mean "crash".)
The other side to it is the new members. I'm not talking about Mr. Jones down the street just bought an ARF and is now seen at the local meetings... I'm talking about the younger pilots. $75 for someone who lives with his parents is not an easy amount to come by, unless Dad is in the same hobby. So with that, cost does become an issue. The solution? Well... you have to face facts, and you can't feel bad for the youngsters. We can't think back to the time when we first started out. It's not like that anymore. We have kids with $300 MP3 players and $500 hockey and baseball memberships. So tough beans to them. Let them make the decision.
INFORMATION
When money is the real issue, how it's spent will always be questioned. As it stands, MAAC sponsors a magazine. This is a great function of MAAC in that information can be had by all members. But before I get into anything about the magazine, I want to note that MAAC, and all the functions/services associated with it, is like a race car. If you ask an F1 driver what his primary enemy is on the track, he will say "My steering wheel". The less you use it, the faster you go. That's why they talk so much about how to enter the apex of a turn. So too is the situation in any organization. And anyone here who has run, or does run a company, will agree that sudden changes in how the company functions/operates, will result in an efficiency loss, and generate delays in most management processes of internal functions. Would you buy a car from an auto maker if they changed their whole line every single year? Would they survive the changes?
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set. If sponsoring events is what MAAC is all about, then let it be so. Let's just make sure that everyone agrees that this is what we want. If we don't, then none of these issues will ever go away. So the questions rise to that idea, and many may ask: "why should I pay for this, or that?" This is completely valid. If I don't go to events to compete, why am I paying someone else to? How does Canada send athletes to the Olympics? Simple, just look at the ski jacket the athlete is wearing. Loaded full of logos, icons, and badges (it's a wonder they can compete with all the extra padding). Those who want to compete, will seek sponsorship. Should MAAC sponsor an event? Let's see... When a sponsor puts a badge on the pilot at an event, there is a return for the sponsor. Exposure. Exposure equals sales, and so everyone is happy. This is how it works in any industry. What does MAAC get if they sponsor an event? ...More members? What is the return? Not anything I can see. So why is MAAC sponsoring events? I'm not sure really... is there some obligation, some kind of Canadian pride that says MAAC should? Well, I don't really know. Is that what MAAC is about, is that the function of MAAC? What is the bottom line? Simple. MAAC has members because it's mandatory for pilots at the field. Members understand they must pay... if they want to play. Simple as that. So as hard as it sounds. MAAC, in my opinion, should not be involved in supporting anything that is not in the prime interest of all members in conjunction with it's primary function. Otherwise, sponsoring an event to which there is no return... is just giving away money.
Many may argue that "what are you complaining about... is only a $1 per member..." It's the principal. It could be next to free, and it will still generate squabbles and questions from all those who have nothing better to do. And MAAC as an organization, has to be accountable to all members... even the squawkers. It's their duty. So why put that load on them? It's not worth it, and it shouldn't be an issue. Will the event die on the spot if MAAC doesn't sponsor it? I think we all know the answer.
If MAAC defined itself true to it's primary function. Then there would be no questions, arguments, or ruffled feathers. With a defined function in place, staff could concentrate on doing what it knows has to be done.
Leaving open the option to do/offer services at random, dilutes what the purpose of MAAC is to everyone. To me, it sounds like the initial function of MAAC was too simple. So ideas started to surface... "MAAC should do this, or that..." veering away from what is really needed. We have to stop thinking and aspiring about "what would be nice", and become truly focused. The MAAC staff probably answer mail and phone calls about a great many things. Things that have grown over the years... requiring more staff time to handle, manage and answer to. Ya, I bet they are underpaid. We all want insurance, information, and our car waxed with a free coffee.
An organization that must be accountable to all members should be able to offer accurate and timely information relevant to every member. What information do all members need? How about everything that MAAC represents. Yes, event schedules of zone functions, internal news, status of critical concerns... these sort of things. With that, MAAC needs a vehicle to deliver this information. This is where the magazine come into place.
MAGAZINE
Let's all remember that the magazine is not the function or property of MAAC. It is a very important service, but should be regarded as such. Should MAAC decide what should be in the magazine? Well, is the magazine the property of MAAC? Not that I'm aware of. No more then the 50 advertisers in the next issue of RCM. MAAC pays the magazine in order to get it's material out to users. There is a cost to that. If there is anyone that understands that more, it would be me. I've been an Imaging Engineer for 15 years in the print & publishing industry. I'm also a certified Graphic Designer. To put a magazine together is a lot of work. But what is a magazine? What is the "MAAC magazine"? Funny as it seems, they are not the same. However, I can see that the magazine is quickly trying to become "a real magazine". Yes, full of reviews, advertising, and extra goodies. The most of the work in putting a magazine together is spent organizing the material. If all material in a magazine just showed up all at once, then it could be assembled in a week or less. But getting it to that stage is the real work.
Where am I going with this? Let's ask what the function of the magazine is. Is it a news and information channel to all members? Yes. Is it a place to read reviews on the "new sport something-er-other"? Well is it? Sure it's nice to read about something new. If that's why it shows up at my front door. If the magazine is to be a magazine, then let it be a real magazine. Full gloss cover to cover, 50 advertisers, editorials, reviews... the works. Because that's how a magazine survives. Anything in between that and the MAAC newsletter will make both halves suffer the burden of a truly large identity crisis. Is it a magazine or a newsletter? Can you truly have both? Sure, it's possible. But not without a defined division. As it stands, the newsletter section is printed on newsprint, and run on a separate web press. It's cheap and fast. The "magazine" portion tries to stay on the gloss, but landing a flat for a 16 or 32 page signature means you can't have both. Advertisers - who feed the magazine - really don't like sending material with dot gain settings for genson web stock, only to find their material on newsprint. So the magazine suffers in the attempt to generate a decent income. MAAC needs the publication to exist for it's purposes. And to keep the publication floating, MAAC must deal with this shared space with in a publication that wants to be a magazine. Whether cost is affected, I'm not sure.
Ideally, a bimonthly issue that shows up at my front door in a plastic bag, should have two separate items in it. A Newsprint MAAC news item, and a glossy Canadian magazine full of Canadian content WITH international material. This division would allow for more control of the presentation of material to MAAC members without the interruptions of non-essential material.
What will this do to solve our concerns? When members ask questions about ... anything, they want answers. A publication that is focused on the true functions of MAAC can better address the questions - especially if there is room for it. Cost in producing an all-newsprint publication is cheap. Formatting content for the purposes of MAAC's needs is a simple task. The Quark template is there, a real no-brainer. A separate magazine bundled with the newsletter will obviously get the same exposure to Canadians. Advertisers would then love to be part of an all-Canadian magazine with a guaranteed readership. The magazine would then actually make money. There could be more staff, for the added business. There would be real in-house resources to handle the assembly of the MAAC newsletter. To that extent, a point will be reached where the tables will turn. The magazine will sponsor the newsletter completely. All in thanks to the guaranteed readership supplied by MAAC. I know for a fact that if MAAC approached a Canadian hobby magazine with it's exposure, that magazine would have it's market handed to them on a pillow. The beauty of having a separate Canadian magazine lies in it's options. It would now be found at magazine stands. If Canadians want to promote a presence in a US dominated market, then I see no better way then this. But we have to divide the two. The two have separate goals, with only mild common values. With a change like this, MAAC members would get more potential room for more information that is relevant to members alone.
If members do not get any answers to their questions, they start to speculate, they gossip, mutter and theorize. In no time, MAAC soon finds itself having to deal with issues that were never there. Adding complexity and process to an already underpaid job.
If MAAC stripped down to what it is really needed for: Critical MAAC information, Canadian events, Safety reminders... then members could not squabble about MAAC's involvement in areas that are not critical to it's existence. Many are very worried that one day MAAC might not be able to secure a carrier for a membership policy. Insurance companies look for any excuse to raise rates. All they need is an excuse. If I sponsored an event, my operating insurance would go through the roof. Why? Because my name will be associated to the function of the event. And if an accident occurred at the event, my insurance company has to send a representative just to say I had no contributing factor in the incident. If I'm not a sponsor, and I'm just visiting, then everything is fine.
I can see insurance companies looking at MAAC and putting their ultra huge microscope on the organization to see if they can define what MAAC is, and what MAAC does/represents/offers/produces/supports. They will look for anything. And if MAAC is sponsoring a team, event, picnic ... questions will be asked. This is my personal, first hand experience.
So let's be real. With an organization that has it's existence questioned by members, should we be asking MAAC to offer itself in other areas - and become many things just because we think "it would be nice"?
Somehow I think that the world of Canadian model aircraft will still be here tomorrow if MAAC stripped down from a Gold Wing to a Moped with a basket - especially if it's sole purpose was only to fetch milk from the corner store. In light of what potential challenges we face today... it scares me to think that we are arguing over what MAAC should pay for/offer when the very core of it's purpose is on life support. If we don't see this as a wake up call, promptly pour a bucket of ice water over your head.
COST
I too agree that $75 is nothing to squawk about. There are, however, two ways we have to look at this. From the perspective of someone who fits the profile of the average MAAC member (45 year old male, owns house, family, job/retired) the cost in caparison to what you pay in driving a car - is not worth anyone to quibble about. And yes, compared to other hobbies, this one is very cheap. I mean, if we didn't all fly model planes, what would we be doing? Golf, boating, skiing, scuba diving, RV homes, .... unless you consider riding a bike a hobby, this is a lot of bang for the buck (bang does not mean "crash".)
The other side to it is the new members. I'm not talking about Mr. Jones down the street just bought an ARF and is now seen at the local meetings... I'm talking about the younger pilots. $75 for someone who lives with his parents is not an easy amount to come by, unless Dad is in the same hobby. So with that, cost does become an issue. The solution? Well... you have to face facts, and you can't feel bad for the youngsters. We can't think back to the time when we first started out. It's not like that anymore. We have kids with $300 MP3 players and $500 hockey and baseball memberships. So tough beans to them. Let them make the decision.
INFORMATION
When money is the real issue, how it's spent will always be questioned. As it stands, MAAC sponsors a magazine. This is a great function of MAAC in that information can be had by all members. But before I get into anything about the magazine, I want to note that MAAC, and all the functions/services associated with it, is like a race car. If you ask an F1 driver what his primary enemy is on the track, he will say "My steering wheel". The less you use it, the faster you go. That's why they talk so much about how to enter the apex of a turn. So too is the situation in any organization. And anyone here who has run, or does run a company, will agree that sudden changes in how the company functions/operates, will result in an efficiency loss, and generate delays in most management processes of internal functions. Would you buy a car from an auto maker if they changed their whole line every single year? Would they survive the changes?
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set. If sponsoring events is what MAAC is all about, then let it be so. Let's just make sure that everyone agrees that this is what we want. If we don't, then none of these issues will ever go away. So the questions rise to that idea, and many may ask: "why should I pay for this, or that?" This is completely valid. If I don't go to events to compete, why am I paying someone else to? How does Canada send athletes to the Olympics? Simple, just look at the ski jacket the athlete is wearing. Loaded full of logos, icons, and badges (it's a wonder they can compete with all the extra padding). Those who want to compete, will seek sponsorship. Should MAAC sponsor an event? Let's see... When a sponsor puts a badge on the pilot at an event, there is a return for the sponsor. Exposure. Exposure equals sales, and so everyone is happy. This is how it works in any industry. What does MAAC get if they sponsor an event? ...More members? What is the return? Not anything I can see. So why is MAAC sponsoring events? I'm not sure really... is there some obligation, some kind of Canadian pride that says MAAC should? Well, I don't really know. Is that what MAAC is about, is that the function of MAAC? What is the bottom line? Simple. MAAC has members because it's mandatory for pilots at the field. Members understand they must pay... if they want to play. Simple as that. So as hard as it sounds. MAAC, in my opinion, should not be involved in supporting anything that is not in the prime interest of all members in conjunction with it's primary function. Otherwise, sponsoring an event to which there is no return... is just giving away money.
Many may argue that "what are you complaining about... is only a $1 per member..." It's the principal. It could be next to free, and it will still generate squabbles and questions from all those who have nothing better to do. And MAAC as an organization, has to be accountable to all members... even the squawkers. It's their duty. So why put that load on them? It's not worth it, and it shouldn't be an issue. Will the event die on the spot if MAAC doesn't sponsor it? I think we all know the answer.
If MAAC defined itself true to it's primary function. Then there would be no questions, arguments, or ruffled feathers. With a defined function in place, staff could concentrate on doing what it knows has to be done.
Leaving open the option to do/offer services at random, dilutes what the purpose of MAAC is to everyone. To me, it sounds like the initial function of MAAC was too simple. So ideas started to surface... "MAAC should do this, or that..." veering away from what is really needed. We have to stop thinking and aspiring about "what would be nice", and become truly focused. The MAAC staff probably answer mail and phone calls about a great many things. Things that have grown over the years... requiring more staff time to handle, manage and answer to. Ya, I bet they are underpaid. We all want insurance, information, and our car waxed with a free coffee.
An organization that must be accountable to all members should be able to offer accurate and timely information relevant to every member. What information do all members need? How about everything that MAAC represents. Yes, event schedules of zone functions, internal news, status of critical concerns... these sort of things. With that, MAAC needs a vehicle to deliver this information. This is where the magazine come into place.
MAGAZINE
Let's all remember that the magazine is not the function or property of MAAC. It is a very important service, but should be regarded as such. Should MAAC decide what should be in the magazine? Well, is the magazine the property of MAAC? Not that I'm aware of. No more then the 50 advertisers in the next issue of RCM. MAAC pays the magazine in order to get it's material out to users. There is a cost to that. If there is anyone that understands that more, it would be me. I've been an Imaging Engineer for 15 years in the print & publishing industry. I'm also a certified Graphic Designer. To put a magazine together is a lot of work. But what is a magazine? What is the "MAAC magazine"? Funny as it seems, they are not the same. However, I can see that the magazine is quickly trying to become "a real magazine". Yes, full of reviews, advertising, and extra goodies. The most of the work in putting a magazine together is spent organizing the material. If all material in a magazine just showed up all at once, then it could be assembled in a week or less. But getting it to that stage is the real work.
Where am I going with this? Let's ask what the function of the magazine is. Is it a news and information channel to all members? Yes. Is it a place to read reviews on the "new sport something-er-other"? Well is it? Sure it's nice to read about something new. If that's why it shows up at my front door. If the magazine is to be a magazine, then let it be a real magazine. Full gloss cover to cover, 50 advertisers, editorials, reviews... the works. Because that's how a magazine survives. Anything in between that and the MAAC newsletter will make both halves suffer the burden of a truly large identity crisis. Is it a magazine or a newsletter? Can you truly have both? Sure, it's possible. But not without a defined division. As it stands, the newsletter section is printed on newsprint, and run on a separate web press. It's cheap and fast. The "magazine" portion tries to stay on the gloss, but landing a flat for a 16 or 32 page signature means you can't have both. Advertisers - who feed the magazine - really don't like sending material with dot gain settings for genson web stock, only to find their material on newsprint. So the magazine suffers in the attempt to generate a decent income. MAAC needs the publication to exist for it's purposes. And to keep the publication floating, MAAC must deal with this shared space with in a publication that wants to be a magazine. Whether cost is affected, I'm not sure.
Ideally, a bimonthly issue that shows up at my front door in a plastic bag, should have two separate items in it. A Newsprint MAAC news item, and a glossy Canadian magazine full of Canadian content WITH international material. This division would allow for more control of the presentation of material to MAAC members without the interruptions of non-essential material.
What will this do to solve our concerns? When members ask questions about ... anything, they want answers. A publication that is focused on the true functions of MAAC can better address the questions - especially if there is room for it. Cost in producing an all-newsprint publication is cheap. Formatting content for the purposes of MAAC's needs is a simple task. The Quark template is there, a real no-brainer. A separate magazine bundled with the newsletter will obviously get the same exposure to Canadians. Advertisers would then love to be part of an all-Canadian magazine with a guaranteed readership. The magazine would then actually make money. There could be more staff, for the added business. There would be real in-house resources to handle the assembly of the MAAC newsletter. To that extent, a point will be reached where the tables will turn. The magazine will sponsor the newsletter completely. All in thanks to the guaranteed readership supplied by MAAC. I know for a fact that if MAAC approached a Canadian hobby magazine with it's exposure, that magazine would have it's market handed to them on a pillow. The beauty of having a separate Canadian magazine lies in it's options. It would now be found at magazine stands. If Canadians want to promote a presence in a US dominated market, then I see no better way then this. But we have to divide the two. The two have separate goals, with only mild common values. With a change like this, MAAC members would get more potential room for more information that is relevant to members alone.
If members do not get any answers to their questions, they start to speculate, they gossip, mutter and theorize. In no time, MAAC soon finds itself having to deal with issues that were never there. Adding complexity and process to an already underpaid job.
If MAAC stripped down to what it is really needed for: Critical MAAC information, Canadian events, Safety reminders... then members could not squabble about MAAC's involvement in areas that are not critical to it's existence. Many are very worried that one day MAAC might not be able to secure a carrier for a membership policy. Insurance companies look for any excuse to raise rates. All they need is an excuse. If I sponsored an event, my operating insurance would go through the roof. Why? Because my name will be associated to the function of the event. And if an accident occurred at the event, my insurance company has to send a representative just to say I had no contributing factor in the incident. If I'm not a sponsor, and I'm just visiting, then everything is fine.
I can see insurance companies looking at MAAC and putting their ultra huge microscope on the organization to see if they can define what MAAC is, and what MAAC does/represents/offers/produces/supports. They will look for anything. And if MAAC is sponsoring a team, event, picnic ... questions will be asked. This is my personal, first hand experience.
So let's be real. With an organization that has it's existence questioned by members, should we be asking MAAC to offer itself in other areas - and become many things just because we think "it would be nice"?
Somehow I think that the world of Canadian model aircraft will still be here tomorrow if MAAC stripped down from a Gold Wing to a Moped with a basket - especially if it's sole purpose was only to fetch milk from the corner store. In light of what potential challenges we face today... it scares me to think that we are arguing over what MAAC should pay for/offer when the very core of it's purpose is on life support. If we don't see this as a wake up call, promptly pour a bucket of ice water over your head.
04-14-2005, 02:49 PM
#37
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: Drexus
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set.
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set.
THE CONSTITUTION OF M.A.A.C.
This Constitution shall come into effect on March 17, 1991 and shall replace and supercede
any previous Constitutions
ARTICLE 1 - NAME
The organization shall be “MODEL AERONAUTICS ASSOCIATION OF CANADAâ€;
with its shortened form shall be known as M.A.A.C., hereinafter referred to as the
‘Association’, and is incorporated as such under the laws of the Government of Canada.
ARTICLE 2 - AFFILIATION
The Association shall act as a representative of the Aero Club of Canada (A.C.C.) in
establishing and maintaining official regulations governing the conduct of model aeroplane
records and contests and to issue sanctions for same in accordance with any authority
granted by the Aero Club of Canada, as representative in Canada of the Federation
Aeronautique Internationale (F.A.I).
ARTICLE 3 - PURPOSE AND OBJECTS
The Association is organized for the purpose of carrying on in one or more provinces of
Canada without pecuniary gain to its members the following objects and purposes.
(a) To foster, enhance, assist, aid, engage in and develop scientific advancement in
the sport of model aeronautics; to give recognition to leadership in the field of model
aeronautics and to offer guidance in the direction of affairs affecting model aeronautics on
a national basis.
(b) To provide a central organization to record and disseminate information relating
to model aeronautics.
(c) To publish scientific journals and news bulletins relating to model aeronautics.
(d) To guide and direct national model aviation activities to the end that model
aeronautics may be advanced in Canada in a manner that will best serve aviation as a
whole and as well to serve as liaison with the Ministries of Government concerned with
aviation in Canada.
(e) To direct the technical organization of national and international model aircraft
contests held within Canada in accordance with any authority granted by the Aero Club of
Canada or to conduct same.
(f) To licence model aircraft and fliers thereof for competition in accordance with
authority vested in the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada by the Aero Club of
Canada.
(g) To have recognized by the Aero Club of Canada, all official model aircraft
competition and records which are sanctioned by the Model Aeronautics Association of
Canada.
(h) To enable the holding of model aircraft contests with the sanction of the Model
Aeronautics Association of Canada.
04-14-2005, 03:24 PM
#38
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: Drexus
MAGAZINE
Let's all remember that the magazine is not the function or property of MAAC. It is a very important service, but should be regarded as such. Should MAAC decide what should be in the magazine? Well, is the magazine the property of MAAC? Not that I'm aware of.
MAGAZINE
Let's all remember that the magazine is not the function or property of MAAC. It is a very important service, but should be regarded as such. Should MAAC decide what should be in the magazine? Well, is the magazine the property of MAAC? Not that I'm aware of.
MAAC has a specification for the magazine, a priority list of the content, and currently is providing more that their mandated content space worth of content. It is VERY MUCH the association's magazine.
It should be noted that the extra content comes at my own expense. The costs of creating a separate newsletter and 'commercial' magazine would be significant.
04-14-2005, 04:28 PM
#39
My Feedback: (10)
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Drexus wrote: ".. I'm talking about the younger pilots. $75 for someone who lives with his parents is not an easy amount to come by, unless Dad is in the same hobby. So with that, cost does become an issue. The solution? Well... you have to face facts, and you can't feel bad for the youngsters. We can't think back to the time when we first started out. It's not like that anymore."
Lets not forget that for Juniors under 18 yrs old, the rate is still only $7 and $18.75 (for without and with the magazine, respectively) which is not a large sum of money even for a younger member, who perhaps does not yet work or earn a lot of $$. They dont have to pay the $75 rate. $7 a year for a membership is less than going to see a movie these days, or one fast food meal. That should not keep any child out of the organisation.
AJC
Lets not forget that for Juniors under 18 yrs old, the rate is still only $7 and $18.75 (for without and with the magazine, respectively) which is not a large sum of money even for a younger member, who perhaps does not yet work or earn a lot of $$. They dont have to pay the $75 rate. $7 a year for a membership is less than going to see a movie these days, or one fast food meal. That should not keep any child out of the organisation.
AJC
04-14-2005, 05:21 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Drexus said:
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set. If sponsoring events is what MAAC is all about, then let it be so. Let's just make sure that everyone agrees that this is what we want.
So what's my point here? I believe that MAAC must define itself. What ever it does internally or externally must be defined, and set. If sponsoring events is what MAAC is all about, then let it be so. Let's just make sure that everyone agrees that this is what we want.
CAN773 responded:
THE CONSTITUTION OF M.A.A.C.
This Constitution shall come into effect on March 17, 1991 and shall replace and supercede
any previous Constitutions ...
THE CONSTITUTION OF M.A.A.C.
This Constitution shall come into effect on March 17, 1991 and shall replace and supercede
any previous Constitutions ...
I hope that I am not saying anything extreme or heretical when I note that MAAC cannot afford to do everything. We must prioritize. This will inevitably mean that some of the constitutional objectives might be put on a back burner for a time, while others might be emphasized. But, does it not seem like a good idea to ask the membership what the priorities should be, from time to time? Obviously, everyone has their own opinion, but if it turned out that a majority of members favoured sponsored events it would be hard to argue that MAAC should be sponsoring events. Or, if a majority thought that MAAC should get out of the sponsoring business for a few years, then maybe that should be taken seriously too.
Personally, I think items (a) and (d) in the list of Purposes and Objects are the most important of MAAC's tasks.
(a) To foster, enhance, assist, aid, engage in and develop scientific advancement in
the sport of model aeronautics; to give recognition to leadership in the field of model
aeronautics and to offer guidance in the direction of affairs affecting model aeronautics on
a national basis.
...
(d) To guide and direct national model aviation activities to the end that model
aeronautics may be advanced in Canada in a manner that will best serve aviation as a
whole and as well to serve as liaison with the Ministries of Government concerned with
aviation in Canada.
the sport of model aeronautics; to give recognition to leadership in the field of model
aeronautics and to offer guidance in the direction of affairs affecting model aeronautics on
a national basis.
...
(d) To guide and direct national model aviation activities to the end that model
aeronautics may be advanced in Canada in a manner that will best serve aviation as a
whole and as well to serve as liaison with the Ministries of Government concerned with
aviation in Canada.
Another way of putting this would be to ask: "What would happen to model aviation in Canada if MAAC stopped doing X?" There are some things that MAAC does that are absolutely essential (IMHO), and there are other things that are perhaps useful and supportive, and still others perhaps that are tangential. But if we based this discussion on finding the minimal set of things that MAAC must do to satisfy (a) and (d) above, maybe that would be a less contentious approach, and the basis for meaningful progress.
Just a thought...
04-14-2005, 05:39 PM
#41
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: fledermaus
The constitution of MAAC lists the general operating goals and principles of the organization. How those goals and principles are put into practice is probably more what Drexus and others are talking about.
The constitution of MAAC lists the general operating goals and principles of the organization. How those goals and principles are put into practice is probably more what Drexus and others are talking about.
04-14-2005, 05:50 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: can773
Dexus asked to MAAC to define itself....the constitution defines MAAC....regardless of how to acheive the goals of the constitution that is what MAAC is. We have all come to create this constitution/organization, we have the power to change it. If there is sufficient need to change it then I am sure it will happen and the direction of MAAC will change. If apathy, complacency etc prevent us from changing it then its all our faults for a failing organization (not saying that it is) and we will all bear the consequences of that.
Dexus asked to MAAC to define itself....the constitution defines MAAC....regardless of how to acheive the goals of the constitution that is what MAAC is. We have all come to create this constitution/organization, we have the power to change it. If there is sufficient need to change it then I am sure it will happen and the direction of MAAC will change. If apathy, complacency etc prevent us from changing it then its all our faults for a failing organization (not saying that it is) and we will all bear the consequences of that.
But, as I said before, the reality of any organization is only an interpretation of its definition. You don't need to change the definition necessarily, and I believe firmly that there are many valid interpretations of MAAC's constitution. Part of the difficulty we have seen anywhere MAAC is discussed is that a lot of people refuse to accept that other people's interpretations are also valid - just different.
But, if there is not one interpretation that forms the operating basis of the organization and is accepted by a majority of the members, you have chaos. That's why I think MAAC should ask the members what they want, periodically, and revise its implementation of the constitution accordingly. It cannot and should not do anything that conflicts with the spirit or the letter of the constitution, but there are (as I have said) lots of ways those goals and principles can be implemented and we need to make choices.
We also need everyone to agree to disagree from time to time. In any large organization, some people's priorities will not get the attention they believe they should. Fine, just remember that the organization only works if everyone agrees to make it work.
04-14-2005, 10:10 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: tecumseh,
ON,
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
The problem with the fee increase is that the budget for admin operations is too high. I have no problem with insurance and mailing cost. The problem I have is that the admin budget is too high. If the admin budget was under control there would be no need for such a large increase in dues.
04-14-2005, 11:38 PM
#44
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
ORIGINAL: adaptabl
The problem with the fee increase is that the budget for admin operations is too high. I have no problem with insurance and mailing cost. The problem I have is that the admin budget is too high. If the admin budget was under control there would be no need for such a large increase in dues.
The problem with the fee increase is that the budget for admin operations is too high. I have no problem with insurance and mailing cost. The problem I have is that the admin budget is too high. If the admin budget was under control there would be no need for such a large increase in dues.
A professionally commissioned report came to the conclusion that the office was under staffed and under paid - that we are having trouble keepping good employees is a sign that we are not paying enough, and at onlt 37% of the 2006 budget it is tough to say that our adminmistrative costs are high.
04-15-2005, 02:13 AM
#45
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Its only an opinion. Let it be said.
Also the problem of losing good employees may or may not be related to pay. I left jobs most often for reasons totally unrelated to pay, but I will say I sometimes stayed on longer than I would have liked because of the pay. (PS What I mean is that high pay doesn't necessarily retain the good employees along with a good attitude.) There coud be any number of reasons for people leaving. There could be a control freak, there could be a lack of direction, a lack of recognition for good work, whatever. (hundreds of reasons could be put here)
BTW just for information, let's not start a war, because the "study"'s conclusion may have been right but.... A good consultant first determines what management believes is the problem and then writes their report accordingly. That's how they stay in business. Ask me how I know. If the conclusion is different than the opinion of the party that commissioned it, how could it be right?
I would like to know how the extra info is provided in the magazine at your expense. I just want to understand what you mean and why, if possible.
Also the problem of losing good employees may or may not be related to pay. I left jobs most often for reasons totally unrelated to pay, but I will say I sometimes stayed on longer than I would have liked because of the pay. (PS What I mean is that high pay doesn't necessarily retain the good employees along with a good attitude.) There coud be any number of reasons for people leaving. There could be a control freak, there could be a lack of direction, a lack of recognition for good work, whatever. (hundreds of reasons could be put here)
BTW just for information, let's not start a war, because the "study"'s conclusion may have been right but.... A good consultant first determines what management believes is the problem and then writes their report accordingly. That's how they stay in business. Ask me how I know. If the conclusion is different than the opinion of the party that commissioned it, how could it be right?
I would like to know how the extra info is provided in the magazine at your expense. I just want to understand what you mean and why, if possible.
04-15-2005, 09:28 AM
#46
My Feedback: (130)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millet, AB, CANADA
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
I don't know if our administration costs are too high or not. If a study that we bought and paid for indicates that they are not, considering the scope of the organization, then I think we need to accept the results of the study.
I do agree with the statement that the amount an employee is paid, (assume well paid) does not guarantee a happy and content employee. Although pay is important, there is more to the whole equation than pay, that being job satisfaction, the feeling that the employee is 'part' of something and not just an employee number, appreciated by management, etc. The best thing we can do for ourselves is to find a job or an occupation where we look forward to getting up and going to work everyday (or at least most days). After that, the pay is just icing on the cake.
Ron
I do agree with the statement that the amount an employee is paid, (assume well paid) does not guarantee a happy and content employee. Although pay is important, there is more to the whole equation than pay, that being job satisfaction, the feeling that the employee is 'part' of something and not just an employee number, appreciated by management, etc. The best thing we can do for ourselves is to find a job or an occupation where we look forward to getting up and going to work everyday (or at least most days). After that, the pay is just icing on the cake.
Ron
04-15-2005, 09:30 AM
#47
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary,
AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
The thing is that it is a known fact that we KNOW that the staff are leaving because they easily can find higher paying jobs with good benefits ... (If people would ask rather than theorize ...)
Karen Frank was the first of many to jump ship, after 10 years with the association, in part because she knew she could find a better job (pay and conditions) easily, and partly because she got sick and tired of battling for even rudimentary respect from the board come budget time. It is worth noting that she left without a job lined up! Rhonda Lepkan also left the association after several years because of better paying opportunities - not because of work conditions.
As for the study - the results were ignored, because a) the report was too detailed and b) it didn's say what many of the board wanted it to (I was on the board at that time) It should be noted that none of the recommendations of the report have been implemented, and wage increases have barely kept pace with inflation, including a large hike a few years ago after a several year freeze.
Additionally, this report was phase one of a three part study that was halted after the first report was delivered ... so apparently this company valued their integrity over playing to the client. (If you just told people what they wanted to hear, you would never have long term success)
As for the 'extra info' ... MAAC's tender specification is for an 88 page magazine on newsprint, with 4 pages of colour (cover) and an allowance of up to 30% advertising. I don't remember the last time that I printed any less than 94 pages... and last year was all 104 pages.
Those extra pages and 48 pages of available colour come out of my pocket (yes, that pocket is filled with extra advertising revenue in some cases ... although generally my ad content doesn't justify going beyond 88 pages and I still have)
If I were to ad pages or make other changes (paper weight) to take the weight over 200 grams, I'm also on the hook for the extra postage.
Karen Frank was the first of many to jump ship, after 10 years with the association, in part because she knew she could find a better job (pay and conditions) easily, and partly because she got sick and tired of battling for even rudimentary respect from the board come budget time. It is worth noting that she left without a job lined up! Rhonda Lepkan also left the association after several years because of better paying opportunities - not because of work conditions.
As for the study - the results were ignored, because a) the report was too detailed and b) it didn's say what many of the board wanted it to (I was on the board at that time) It should be noted that none of the recommendations of the report have been implemented, and wage increases have barely kept pace with inflation, including a large hike a few years ago after a several year freeze.
Additionally, this report was phase one of a three part study that was halted after the first report was delivered ... so apparently this company valued their integrity over playing to the client. (If you just told people what they wanted to hear, you would never have long term success)
As for the 'extra info' ... MAAC's tender specification is for an 88 page magazine on newsprint, with 4 pages of colour (cover) and an allowance of up to 30% advertising. I don't remember the last time that I printed any less than 94 pages... and last year was all 104 pages.
Those extra pages and 48 pages of available colour come out of my pocket (yes, that pocket is filled with extra advertising revenue in some cases ... although generally my ad content doesn't justify going beyond 88 pages and I still have)
If I were to ad pages or make other changes (paper weight) to take the weight over 200 grams, I'm also on the hook for the extra postage.
04-15-2005, 12:43 PM
#48
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
It's unfortunate that informed business people, such as RON, don't have the time needed to get deep into MAAC because the board could use a few more with that range of practical experience. Typically, board members, myself included, seem to be those who have the stable government job (and thus, the time) and tend to think of the association in terms of "government run" (please don't include me in that, though). Bending over backwards to try and keep everybody happy, getting detoured by the loudest group from time to time and in the end, making nobody happy. It also winds up being filled with bloated bureaucracy and inefficiencies.
I like the idea of some clear and defined primary functions.
I personally see the Priorities of
Insurance (which includes flying sites for obvious reasons)
Frequencies (Keeping a finger in the governing body (RABC) to do what we can to protect our frequencies)
Without either of the above, our hobby is in trouble.
Most recently, a healthy relationship with Transport Canada would also make the top 3 of priorities as they have the ultimate hammer on what we do.
The rest is fluff.
(a) To foster, enhance, assist, aid, engage in and develop scientific advancement in
the sport of model aeronautics; to give recognition to leadership in the field of model
aeronautics and to offer guidance in the direction of affairs affecting model aeronautics on
a national basis.
(d) To guide and direct national model aviation activities to the end that model
aeronautics may be advanced in Canada in a manner that will best serve aviation as a
whole and as well to serve as liaison with the Ministries of Government concerned with
aviation in Canada
It's nice to want to defend the constitution because stuff like the two articles above sure sound good, but as previously stated, ambiguously worded stuff like this is wide open to interpretation and doesn't give clear direction. Articles like these open the door to anyone to interpret them the way that best benefits them.
Priorities and direction need to be simple, concise and have no "wiggle room".
(a) MAAC shall maintain liability insurance coverage for current members and chartered clubs.
(b) MAAC shall maintain membership in the Radio Advisory Board of Canada
(c) MAAC shall maintain communication with Transport Canada as it relates to the operation of model aircraft.
...........the rest is fluff, open to review, change and cancellation as the board requires to maintain the above three.
Let individuals, events and diciplines look after themselves.
AND Keith:
Thanks for the FACTS on office staff issues. I know you take it on the chin by putting that stuff out there, but it is the truth and needs to be said. I've said it time and time again, that Keith and I certainly did not/do not agree on a lot of issues, but I have respect for his honesty and his true wish to do what He beleives is best for ALL members. Take him at his word folks.
..........but that doesn't mean you have to agree with him on opinion.
Marc Sharpe
Former MAAC board Escapee
I like the idea of some clear and defined primary functions.
I personally see the Priorities of
Insurance (which includes flying sites for obvious reasons)
Frequencies (Keeping a finger in the governing body (RABC) to do what we can to protect our frequencies)
Without either of the above, our hobby is in trouble.
Most recently, a healthy relationship with Transport Canada would also make the top 3 of priorities as they have the ultimate hammer on what we do.
The rest is fluff.
(a) To foster, enhance, assist, aid, engage in and develop scientific advancement in
the sport of model aeronautics; to give recognition to leadership in the field of model
aeronautics and to offer guidance in the direction of affairs affecting model aeronautics on
a national basis.
(d) To guide and direct national model aviation activities to the end that model
aeronautics may be advanced in Canada in a manner that will best serve aviation as a
whole and as well to serve as liaison with the Ministries of Government concerned with
aviation in Canada
It's nice to want to defend the constitution because stuff like the two articles above sure sound good, but as previously stated, ambiguously worded stuff like this is wide open to interpretation and doesn't give clear direction. Articles like these open the door to anyone to interpret them the way that best benefits them.
Priorities and direction need to be simple, concise and have no "wiggle room".
(a) MAAC shall maintain liability insurance coverage for current members and chartered clubs.
(b) MAAC shall maintain membership in the Radio Advisory Board of Canada
(c) MAAC shall maintain communication with Transport Canada as it relates to the operation of model aircraft.
...........the rest is fluff, open to review, change and cancellation as the board requires to maintain the above three.
Let individuals, events and diciplines look after themselves.
AND Keith:
Thanks for the FACTS on office staff issues. I know you take it on the chin by putting that stuff out there, but it is the truth and needs to be said. I've said it time and time again, that Keith and I certainly did not/do not agree on a lot of issues, but I have respect for his honesty and his true wish to do what He beleives is best for ALL members. Take him at his word folks.
..........but that doesn't mean you have to agree with him on opinion.
Marc Sharpe
Former MAAC board Escapee
04-15-2005, 02:02 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
At the risk of ruining our new "working relationship" 
I find I take exception to your labelling "the rest" as "fluff".
Although it's true that the wording on these items may be somewhat vague, I suggest that this was intentional.
The fact is, the world is a dynamic place and, while it might be nice to have more definitive language around these issues, this would result in addressing current issues at the time of definition while leaving little "wiggle room" (your words) to react to the changing landscape (e.g. politics).
By way of example, how would you, as a constution writer (in the days our constitution was written), foresee impacts of the Kyoto accord....[sm=confused.gif]
I find I take exception to your labelling "the rest" as "fluff".Although it's true that the wording on these items may be somewhat vague, I suggest that this was intentional.
The fact is, the world is a dynamic place and, while it might be nice to have more definitive language around these issues, this would result in addressing current issues at the time of definition while leaving little "wiggle room" (your words) to react to the changing landscape (e.g. politics).
By way of example, how would you, as a constution writer (in the days our constitution was written), foresee impacts of the Kyoto accord....[sm=confused.gif]
04-15-2005, 06:26 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Winnipeg,
MB, CANADA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC membership reasonable?
Sharpe may have a point when he suggests that some key items should be explicitly stipulated - insurance, frequencies and gov't relationship are all essential as he says.
On the other hand, Jim McIntyre is also correct when he says that the "vague" wording of the constitution may have been intentional. Indeed it almost certainly was intentional, because that's how constitutions are written (try reading the most famous one of all, from our friends south of 49). Constitutions have to provide guidance for a changing organization in a changing world, so they don't usually contain a lot of specific directives. On the other hand, you do find specific statements about the things an organization thinks really matter to it - in the US it's free speech, free guns etc (which were added later as amendments)
Laws are the specifics by which the constitution is put into practice. That's why the law books are always much longer and way way more detailed than the constitution. Laws represent the interpretation of the constitution at a given time, and they can and should be changed when needed, provided that they remain consistent with the constitution.
In light of my comments, may I suggest that it is highly significant that MAAC's constitution has FOUR fairly specific items in its "Objectives" relating to competitions and none relating to insurance or frequencies? Clearly, the constitution was framed in the belief that competition was a primary goal of MAAC. That does not mean that the framers felt that insurance or frequencies were unimportant - it is likely in fact that they believed that their importance was so obvious that they could be subsumed in the two general statements of items (a) and (d).
Maybe that is so, maybe it isn't. I wasn't there. But, I do agree with Sharpe about a need for some specifics regarding priorities - some of which probably can be codified as bylaws of the organization, while it may be that others could be added as amendments to the constitution.
My opinion is also that, despite 4 mentions of competition in the constitution's objectives, it would be appropriate to ASK THE MEMBERSHIP what the priorities for MAAC should be. If the majority of members think competitions should be priority 1, then I'm prepared to go along with that and I would support the executive in budgeting in support of competitions even though I have no intention of participating. On the other hand...
On the other hand, Jim McIntyre is also correct when he says that the "vague" wording of the constitution may have been intentional. Indeed it almost certainly was intentional, because that's how constitutions are written (try reading the most famous one of all, from our friends south of 49). Constitutions have to provide guidance for a changing organization in a changing world, so they don't usually contain a lot of specific directives. On the other hand, you do find specific statements about the things an organization thinks really matter to it - in the US it's free speech, free guns etc (which were added later as amendments)
Laws are the specifics by which the constitution is put into practice. That's why the law books are always much longer and way way more detailed than the constitution. Laws represent the interpretation of the constitution at a given time, and they can and should be changed when needed, provided that they remain consistent with the constitution.
In light of my comments, may I suggest that it is highly significant that MAAC's constitution has FOUR fairly specific items in its "Objectives" relating to competitions and none relating to insurance or frequencies? Clearly, the constitution was framed in the belief that competition was a primary goal of MAAC. That does not mean that the framers felt that insurance or frequencies were unimportant - it is likely in fact that they believed that their importance was so obvious that they could be subsumed in the two general statements of items (a) and (d).
Maybe that is so, maybe it isn't. I wasn't there. But, I do agree with Sharpe about a need for some specifics regarding priorities - some of which probably can be codified as bylaws of the organization, while it may be that others could be added as amendments to the constitution.
My opinion is also that, despite 4 mentions of competition in the constitution's objectives, it would be appropriate to ASK THE MEMBERSHIP what the priorities for MAAC should be. If the majority of members think competitions should be priority 1, then I'm prepared to go along with that and I would support the executive in budgeting in support of competitions even though I have no intention of participating. On the other hand...