Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

This is something I noticed when on the board that is worth discussing.

Should the terms of ZD's/ Exec be limited?

The complaint's been made numerous times about "getting involved", yet time and time a gain, we see a director on the board for years and years?

Personally, I think a regular infusion of new blood would be a good thing. Perhaps a max of 5 years served for ZD's? (that would be a total number in the event that a member comes and goes a year or two at a time.)

The only exception maybe being if you are elected as an Exec. or Prez position. To avoid a lot of the election politics, I think the Prez should be a 3 - 4 year term. One term, then .........next.

whatcha think?

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

MAAC is a ship adrift, the problem again is that members join because the have too rather than they want to. MAAC is not fun, it's old and stuffy, the zone meetings get old and stuffy, too formal for my liking.

At a lot of zone meetings there is no one that wants the position too.

IMHO the MAAC structure needs to be re thought out .

The clubs that provide the backbone have no status in MAAC for instance a r/c club of 100 members maybe represented in the zone by a guy who only flies FF solo.

There has to be a way to get the clubs more voice in maac, perhaps each club president brings to the meeting the proxies of his club automatically - same way the zone rep does at maac.

And you can't say just show up at the zone meeting becasue we have been saying this for years and only a handful of people actually show up each year and the numbers keep dropping.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

I like the idea of the club prez or rep carrying the vote of those not in attendance. I'm sure there is opposing opinion on this one. curious to see what it is.

Applehoney

My Feedback: (3)

> for instance a r/c club of 100 members maybe represented in the zone by a guy who only flies FF solo.

Who obvioiusly has been elected to that position by the R/C flyers, who presumably have faith in his abilities.

Who will, of course, forward any views of that R/C club that are properly presented to him; therefore the 100 r/c flyers are fully represented. As a F/F club would similarly expect to have their interests represented by a R/C flyer in that same position.

Hughes500E

My Feedback: (16)

I agree with the above.

The largest problem is not MAAC, it is the combined members that equal MAAC!

I'm not sure we would find enough capable members to deliver such a constant positive change!

Jim_McIntyre

Been to a Zone meeting lately?
People are not falling over themselves to work for MAAC.
If you limit the length of time anyone can serve, how do you come up with replacements? [sm=confused.gif]

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

.........ah yes, but there is the possibility that the apathy that exists is due in part to the inability to remove the deadwood from the system? Besides, I'm not so sure about that suggestion because I way want to come back some day and fix everything.

However, I do believe the Prez's spot should at the very least be a 3 year term to avoid some of the political "manouvering" during AGMs.

Jim_McIntyre

mmm hmmm.... and it could be a conspiracy by an alien race to ensure apathy becomes a human trait to make us more palateable ... the "veal" of the universe.

C'mon, you really believe what you're posting or is this more entertainment? There is no secret MAAC society with deep dark secrets to control the hobbyist of Canada. I was beginning to have a little respect for your discernment.

"Whoa! was that an ex Zone Director?"
"No, it was a weather balloon... trust us, there are no such things as ex Zone Directors."

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

It is not apathy.

I have not meet anyone that was just dying to be member of maac. MAAC is an organization that just does not connect with the majority of maac.

Why - almost every one is told - you must be a maac member to fly here.

$75.00 is not a lot of money to some (only a cup of coffee, blah , blah) but that amount can be 2x or 3x the dues one pays to a club
so when a member fins out they are paying $75 for $10 insurance, well, the disconnect happens.

Then we get the preachin from maac how maac does so much for us, the mag, the structure, the committees, etc, well let me tell you, no one is really buying this, guess why?

At the club level for usually a smaller fee, they get,
a) a flying site that is maintained.
b) training
c) web site and / or a newsletter

so in those terms is $75 for $10 maac insurance a good deal - I guess when there is only one source.


MAAC has connect with the majority - guys who go out and bore holes in the sky, just for fun. MAAC is stale, boring, dull, talking about a vision, yoouts (youths), no one is buying that, you can preach until the cows come home, no one is buying that.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

....LOL....that's good.

Yeah, your right....just trying to stir some conversation. lol.... I've been to the AZM's ..... not many have the time to play the game and are most are releived when someone puts up their hand. However, interest lurks beneath the surface when, on a rare occaision, there is a competition for the AD's job. ie: SW zone. Suddenly, some passion arises.

......promise, this "Ex-deadweigher" won't be back. Just trying to draw more reaction.

But, seriously, WHat about giving the Prez a 3-4 year term. That one I believe in.

[/quote]

Jim_McIntyre

LOL!

Can be ... in the backwoods. Show me a club within an hours drive (and there are many within an hours drive) of my location with dues that small and I'll join in a minute.

If you see MAAC as insurance-only, then you see the rate MAAC is able to get, no doubt you are annoyed.
So are the many who see government as purely a body who's sole purpose is to support "pogey check" creation and wonder why we spend money helping other countries in times of disaster.

jhelps

By having the existing ZD indicate that his/her term is coming due and he/she cannot run again. One of the reasons for apathy is that there is no pressing need to fill a spot, yet each time a ZD position becomes vacant someone steps up to fill the void (one notable exception in a western zone about 10 years ago).

Jeff

Jim_McIntyre

Ok, so what happens if a zone is left without representation?

I was a member of a club where something similar was tried. Not only did no one step forward but, when the rule was rescinded, the previous president was so annoyed he would not return. Without a President, the club would have had to fold. Instead, a totally inept person without the knowledge, time or desire stepped forward. The club lost members, money and a field. The field may have been lost anyway but, there's no ways of knowing what could have happened. This, to me, is the potential cost, but on a grander scale, of a rule like this.....[X(]

jhelps

Lets not call it a rule then, lets call it a guideline.

As to your example, frankly maybe the club should have folded. Exactly as some have mentioned here WRT MAAC folding, the aftermath would be that a group of like minded individuals would get together and start a new organization ...

OK enough with the elected positions ... your comment about experience is a good one, so why don't we hire a business manager (Hell Linda is almost that already) and pay them to do the administrative stuff including preparing a budget, etc and simply have the board oversee and approve the activities of that position and come up with ways to spend (or bank) any surplus.

Jeff H

Jim_McIntyre

Not a bad idea.... as long as the business manager is capable and understands the nature of the hobby as well as the business. I wouldn't want to see MAAC run as an efficient business to the detriment of the hobby....

britbrat

Here goes ------- I think term limits are a plan for corporate suicide. There are few enough bodies with the will, the energy & skills/tallent for doing the job. Putting limits on their tenure will likely result in the forcibly vacant positions being filled by individuals who have no real desire, or perhaps have a hidden agenda, & who have inadequate skills & tallent for the job. A REALLY BAD IDEA that will likely destroy the organization through incompetence.

If you are unhappy with the job that a particular individual is doing, then do something about it. You (whoever you are) don't have to get directly involved yourself, but you can try to put some other willing individual (WHO CAN DO THE JOB) in there via an election. You can help to organize & campaign for someone with the desire & skills necessary to succeed. Then at least the position will be filled by a capable person.

If you can't find a suitably tallented candidate, then leave the experienced incumbent in place until such time as a suitable replacement surfaces.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

Good discussion.

I really can't argue with your logic on this one.

........did I say that? [X(]

On the same choo-choo of thought, Giving the Prez at least a 2-3 year term instead of facing an election every AGM might help to that end and give them a little security/confidence in dealing with issues? Perhaps a 2 year term should also be considered for ZD's. Might help to lesson the politics.

britbrat

Agreed[sm=thumbup.gif]

Jim_McIntyre

This is making some sense but ... what problem does it address? I don't see a rapid turnover in these positions today. I keep going back to my Dad's pilosophy on elections; "no one is ever voted into office, just voted out".

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

If you attend the SW zone's meeting you may be witness to some of the "politics" behind the ZD's election. Potentially much time will be wasted and if you wind up with "2-camps" at the meeting, each opposing important issues simply because of the personalities involved. There's bound to be some hurt feelings and egos after and the possibility of the losing camp now determined to spend the next year attempting to discredit, dethrone or otherwise interfere with getting things done.

I think some of the post-election posturing may simmer if you know the next shot won't be for a couple of years?

A year really isn't very long and my experience is the next "election campaign" (to put it as politely as possible) began shortly after the meeting and much effort is wasted trying to "hold" or "take-out" the encumbant. I realize that this is the exception, rather than the rule because most ZD's spots aren't contested, but it doesn't hurt to try and find a way to minimize infighting.

The Prez's spot was a glaring example when I was there. It was a battle each year, pitting one side against the other (without getting into the reasons for battle) Hard feelings lingered after each election and the constant posturing and campaigning on both sides was a major distraction. I think a 3 or 4 year term for the Prez would have eased a lot of the tension at the board level. I acknowledge that the Prez and Exec. are working together well now and I hope that continues. (Try to refrain from taking your shots about me not being there anymore.......)

Carl appears to be doing a great job as Prez, but it would be nice if he was in his 1st year of a 3-4 year term. Hypothetically, say a new ZD is elected in the SW zone and has being doing battle with the executive for the last year or 5 and now comes roaring in guns a blazing.........................things would be more stable knowing the Prez wasn't going anywhere for a few years, cutting back on the after hours "unofficial" AGM meetings.

....it would lesson the impact of the arrival of a loose-cannon like that Sharpe guy.

Jim_McIntyre

Don't need to, you're doing a good job of it yourself.

It may be lessened, it may aggravate it.
In the situation you describe, any opposing "team" (as you describe) would likely be more inclined to attempt to engineer an early vacation of the position.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

yes............. but it would be much more difficult to do. Those with a pension for engineering the removal of sitting presidents would have to come out of the shadows, not able to easily hide behind the yearly AGM "proceedures".

It would make it much easier for the Prez, exec and board to dismiss such efforts and keep focused on important issues. I'm relying on my experience through some "iteresting times" ............and the choice of president was issue that led to some anamosity and wounded egos and feelings each year I was there. Tough times will come again. Maybe it's something that will ease tension when it does.

Jim_McIntyre

I don't know. Your arguments are valid but potential counter arguments (like difficulties removing an inappropriate person) are just as valid. [sm=drowning.gif]

I do see a need for continuity but, I think the past president position addresses this quite well.

As for wounded egos ... whatever.

If we're trying to address issues like this, the battle is already lost.[:'(]

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

1 year or 10 years, it don't mean a rat's azz because the board and executive fail to recognize the obivious.

Which is why the majority of flyers are forced to join maac, "you must have maac to fly here"

Whenever the board gets around to accepting and acknowledging this point then maac can move forward with a plan that recognizes this fact.

Also the board have accept and acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of members just want to bore holes in the sky.

Right now MAAC is running a NHL style of adminstration for a rec hockey league for a few special insterest groups.

Jim_McIntyre

Bitter are we Kenny?

Here's a [link=http://www.allproducts.com/ee/vosca/75tr400.jpg]solution to your problem[/link], you won't have to worry about forgetting them anymore.