MAAC committee monster?
06-28-2005, 07:37 AM
#1
MAAC committee monster?
An issue that's been around for a while.
I count 38 different recognized committee's within the last MAAC Mag?
Which ones are actually necessary?
Are any of them necessary?
Which ones actually contribute nationally?
Which ones actually serve a purpose?
Should there be a minimun standard of participation to be recognized?
I've heard the mantra, "All the work is done in committee"? What work?
thoughts.
I count 38 different recognized committee's within the last MAAC Mag?
Which ones are actually necessary?
Are any of them necessary?
Which ones actually contribute nationally?
Which ones actually serve a purpose?
Should there be a minimun standard of participation to be recognized?
I've heard the mantra, "All the work is done in committee"? What work?
thoughts.
06-28-2005, 08:31 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC committee monster?
Good questions.
Being a member of several committees, I can tell you that the work is much like the farmer's saying; "it never rains, it pours".
In my time on committees I have;
[ul][*] organized team trials (including location, judges, flightline c-ordinators, located stopwatches, weigh scales, sound meters etc....)[*]attended and volunteered at several events[*]located volunteers for events[*]arranged rides for volunteers[*]held votes for rule changes[*]drafted changes to the rulebook[*]resurrected the lost rulebook. [>:][*]fielded many questions about rules[*]fielded many general questions and facilitated local contacts[*]fielded requests for information (scale documentation, etc.)[*]Located and arranged for models for movie and commercial shoots[*]written reports to communicate some of the above (here is often where I ran out of time
)[*]several other things (if I took the time to recall)
[/ul]
... and I'm not a long time committee member.
What have you contributed to your committee lately?
Being a member of several committees, I can tell you that the work is much like the farmer's saying; "it never rains, it pours".
In my time on committees I have;
[ul][*] organized team trials (including location, judges, flightline c-ordinators, located stopwatches, weigh scales, sound meters etc....)[*]attended and volunteered at several events[*]located volunteers for events[*]arranged rides for volunteers[*]held votes for rule changes[*]drafted changes to the rulebook[*]resurrected the lost rulebook. [>:][*]fielded many questions about rules[*]fielded many general questions and facilitated local contacts[*]fielded requests for information (scale documentation, etc.)[*]Located and arranged for models for movie and commercial shoots[*]written reports to communicate some of the above (here is often where I ran out of time
)[*]several other things (if I took the time to recall)[/ul]
... and I'm not a long time committee member.
What have you contributed to your committee lately?
06-28-2005, 06:59 PM
#3
RE: MAAC committee monster?
I was on the FAI committee, never got one bit of correspodence, nor did I get the free MAAk trip to Paris to mix with the FAI muky mucks, I was also on the constitution commitee, but the revised constiturion got 2x6ed at the AGM.
38 committes for a MAAK that has become a recreational and social organization, any one for tea?
38 committes for a MAAK that has become a recreational and social organization, any one for tea?
06-29-2005, 07:44 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC committee monster?
Ah, so kenny didn't get the free trip to Paris.
Now we have it, the real cause of the massive chip on his stooped shoulders.[sm=surprised.gif]
I would have to say this is a prime example of MAAC taking fiscal responsibility.[8D]
As for the lack of communications, communications is a two way street.
Too many people volunteer for committees simply to stay informed. I myself have been guilty of that in the past.
Some are quick to point fingers at the chariman, asking why he's not doing anything. The chairman's position is a co-ordinating role in fact, his vote only counts in the breaking of a tie. If you want communications, get involved, ask questions, make proposals. If all you contribute is sitting on your butt, hoping for the inside scoop, taking credit for other people's work, I wouldn't blame anyone for filtering you....
Now we have it, the real cause of the massive chip on his stooped shoulders.[sm=surprised.gif]
I would have to say this is a prime example of MAAC taking fiscal responsibility.[8D]
As for the lack of communications, communications is a two way street.
Too many people volunteer for committees simply to stay informed. I myself have been guilty of that in the past.
Some are quick to point fingers at the chariman, asking why he's not doing anything. The chairman's position is a co-ordinating role in fact, his vote only counts in the breaking of a tie. If you want communications, get involved, ask questions, make proposals. If all you contribute is sitting on your butt, hoping for the inside scoop, taking credit for other people's work, I wouldn't blame anyone for filtering you....
06-29-2005, 10:48 AM
#5
RE: MAAC committee monster?
Avoiding the personal bunk,
I think many of the committees are redundant and only exist in paper..................not to mention providing a great reason to avoid a Zone meeting so you don't have to endure everyone looking at their shoes while volunteers are sought to sit on these things.
From my experience, the board only receives a handful yearend reports from the committees and many of those had little in the way of value. Trimming the committee fat would be a good way cut back on some of the beuocracy that the board needs to deal with and maybe help stay focused.
Some progress has been made by limiting committee members to 2 per zone to help avoid a regional committee situation. However, I think there should be some kind of minimum standards. I think the committee should have a minimum of membership from at least 7 of the 13 zones and manadatory year-end report submitted or the committee is disolved. New or committees seeking to be resurrected, should be required to submit a business case, including names of willing reps from at least 7 of the zones prior to even being considered.
Maybe even limit the total number of committees to 10 and have interests compete for those spots? (We need to find some way to ensure Ken doesn't get to France.......just imagine the international damage he would reap?)
Important Issues like insurance should be left to the board exclusively. It's an area that has to be void of "personalities" and left to CURRENT professionals in the field. Too many self-appointed experts around that muddy the waters.
All opinion and food for discussion.
I think many of the committees are redundant and only exist in paper..................not to mention providing a great reason to avoid a Zone meeting so you don't have to endure everyone looking at their shoes while volunteers are sought to sit on these things.
From my experience, the board only receives a handful yearend reports from the committees and many of those had little in the way of value. Trimming the committee fat would be a good way cut back on some of the beuocracy that the board needs to deal with and maybe help stay focused.
Some progress has been made by limiting committee members to 2 per zone to help avoid a regional committee situation. However, I think there should be some kind of minimum standards. I think the committee should have a minimum of membership from at least 7 of the 13 zones and manadatory year-end report submitted or the committee is disolved. New or committees seeking to be resurrected, should be required to submit a business case, including names of willing reps from at least 7 of the zones prior to even being considered.
Maybe even limit the total number of committees to 10 and have interests compete for those spots? (We need to find some way to ensure Ken doesn't get to France.......just imagine the international damage he would reap?)
Important Issues like insurance should be left to the board exclusively. It's an area that has to be void of "personalities" and left to CURRENT professionals in the field. Too many self-appointed experts around that muddy the waters.
All opinion and food for discussion.
06-29-2005, 11:40 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC committee monster?
My issue with your proposed restrictions are that they would work against emerging disciplines.
Preventing the creation of SIGs simply because the less populous zones have not yet seen growth in these areas is highly counterproductive when we should be fostering this growth. Who in MAAC is responsible for fostering growth in disciplines? Committees.
As for existing committees that you may see little from at the MAAC level, this does not mean they are not active. In many cases, these groups are able to communicate more directly simply because of the existence of the committee as a direct result of direct contact information being available in the magazine or on the website, or by a phone call to the MAAC office....
Also:
[ul][*] There are existing mechanisms for dissolving committees should they prove to be inactive[*] Committee budgets are small and often go unspent (I didn't spend any of my budget).[*] Some are in maintenance mode (mature) so, little new news is available to report
[/ul]
The last point relates back to my previous post about the less visible work of committees ... it's not just about reports. A good example would be the museum committee. I suggest the fact that someone requested a copy of a construction article for a Buzzard Bombshell may not be considered very newsworthy but, the fact that they were able to retrieve them is still important.
Preventing the creation of SIGs simply because the less populous zones have not yet seen growth in these areas is highly counterproductive when we should be fostering this growth. Who in MAAC is responsible for fostering growth in disciplines? Committees.
As for existing committees that you may see little from at the MAAC level, this does not mean they are not active. In many cases, these groups are able to communicate more directly simply because of the existence of the committee as a direct result of direct contact information being available in the magazine or on the website, or by a phone call to the MAAC office....
Also:
[ul][*] There are existing mechanisms for dissolving committees should they prove to be inactive[*] Committee budgets are small and often go unspent (I didn't spend any of my budget).[*] Some are in maintenance mode (mature) so, little new news is available to report
[/ul]
The last point relates back to my previous post about the less visible work of committees ... it's not just about reports. A good example would be the museum committee. I suggest the fact that someone requested a copy of a construction article for a Buzzard Bombshell may not be considered very newsworthy but, the fact that they were able to retrieve them is still important.
06-29-2005, 12:10 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deep River, ON, CANADA
Posts: 3,299
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: MAAC committee monster?
Just to get on the right track in my own mind -- I think that Marc is saying, "without demeaning the work of standing committees, MAAC is becomming buried in bureaucracy & the many committees are a symptom of same" --- have I got that right Marc?
06-29-2005, 12:30 PM
#8
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.
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.
06-29-2005, 01:18 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Claremont,
ON, CANADA
Posts: 2,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: MAAC committee monster?
Here's where we may differ.
Committees, even a committee of one, provide a focus for communication if nothing else. I don't see a lot of beurocratic overhead in having a committee, although committees may impose overheads on themselves, usually in response to political pressure....
Committees, even a committee of one, provide a focus for communication if nothing else. I don't see a lot of beurocratic overhead in having a committee, although committees may impose overheads on themselves, usually in response to political pressure....
