Hughes500E

My Feedback: (16)

Nah, my friend, we all post views and we all have opinions but comments to strike are not needed. My reply was very much in line and let me assure you, my blood pressure remained unchanged!
Just sad, an obvious intelligent individual would choose to "poke".

choose your arguments wisely!

DSLarkin

Sorry, it wasn't intended as a 'poke'. In modelling, as in politics, it is an unfortunate fact that there is a great deal of inter-regional suspicion. And this happens to play out in the MAAC Board. Splitting the SE Zone would provide fairer representation, but it would be hard for Western ZDs to accept. This is a pretty broad brush statement and not always true - I expect Jim Pepperdine takes, as always, a balanced view. Ontario is seen by some as a block that may not be sensitive to the needs of Western modellers, and I'm sure there is some truth to this. Actually the Ontario modellers aren't the least bit anxious to do their Western friends down but it isn't always perceived that way.

For example the Nats are frequently run in Ontario, usually in the SW Zone, and at no cost to MAAC and frequently at a profit. But to a Western modeller, who would have to travel a long way to attend the Nats, this may be perceived as unfair. The fact that it is difficult to get anyone out West to hold the Nats doesn't seem to be relevant. Yes I know the Nats has been run successfully in BC but not very often, and it has never been run in Alberta. In Saskatchewan only a pylon Nats has been run, although very successfully.

No, I'm afraid geopolitics is very much alive on the MAAC Board and you can certainly see it during AGM elections. Everyone is thinking about how to get balanced representation on the Executive. And this is important. But putting an extra Ontario ZD on the Board could just upset what is now a fairly delicate balance.

Please don't think that because I live in Ontario now, that I have an entirely regional perspective. My job was in the Armed Forces and I have lived all over Canada, including the Prairie provinces.

Modelling is not homogenous across Canada. Geography, weather and population density all affect the way our hobby is practiced. Another factor is the impact of immigration - in areas where there is a lot of recent immigration you may see more interest in the more traditional (say older) forms of aeromodelling. Higher population density leads to more interest in competition. So there are bound to be different perspectives in different areas and that is just fine. The trouble comes when someone tries to force their perspective on everybody else (or is perceived to be trying).

So though I think it would be much fairer to split the SE Zone, it would be a hard sell, and if it causes serious concern in zones outside Ontario, I'm certainly not in favour of pushing it. Point is that the idea was floated once, and the Board voted against it - which is the point I'm trying to make. In any case it isn't a real issue within the SE Zone, so why solve a problem that people don't perceive as important?

Maybe I was a bit hard on the question of the MAAC registration package. But clearly in that club someone dropped the ball. This should have been covered in the handover. And it is all there if one accesses the MAAC site!

This isn't to say that MAAC couldn't do things better. Perhaps a little booklet could be produced that would be sent out by the MAAC office when they are notified of a change in a club executive. However when all else fails, the ZD is the elected MAAC representative and it shouldn't hurt to pick up the phone and call him.

DP01

My Feedback: (1)

Oh… but the combined Nationals have been run in the West other than Vancouver - Yorkton '73, Calgary -'76, Winnipeg (Gimli), '78 and Brandon…

Dennis

ronnieo1

...nope...doing good on yer own.....the westers had enuff a you.LOL

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

..... i'm so lonely. [&o]

Morison

There is a big chicken and egg thing going on. For the majority of the competitors in western Canada, from what I have seen, the Canadian Nats are irrelevant. The first Nats I travelled to compete in were the AMA nats, and the only Canadian Nats I have competed in were in my then back yard. After years and years of Nats at Centrailia, the west has simply discounted the Canadian Nats as being little more than a regional competition ... which is unfortunate.

While I agree that at one point there was a drive to have regional representation on the executive, elections in recent years have had much more to do with getting an executive team together that will work openly with the board and concentrate on moving in a positive direction.

kenair

My Feedback: (10)

The board has maintained that the nats are one of the cornerstones of maac and the board has to recognize the value of national competitions, one may say that it should be encouraged if not mandatory that the board compete at the nats annually and perhaps the agm could be scheduled at that time.

the board may also consider assisting the more profecient flyers in each zone with their expenses to attended the nats, that way they can returned to their local clubs and share the wealth of knowledge and experience gained at the nats.

DSLarkin

Keith

Yes, that's certainly true of the last election or two, and I hope it stays that way. But over the past ten or so years, I think my comments are fair. MAAC , though. is a board-centred organisation, rather than a president centred organization, and it is the realization of this that has helped to get the executive back on the rails. But there will always be regional forces and so it is a matter of finding the right balance that will produce an efficient and responsive executive without any part of the country feeling left out.

But we are getting off the subject, which is whether we need to alter the zone representation. The obvious change would be to split SE Zone. On the face of it this looks reasonable. But there is a snag: as things stand, Ontario has 5 ZDs out of 13, about right for their 5K members of MAAC's 13K. If the SE Zone split, that would mean an extra Ontario ZD, which might be de-stabilizing. So the answer to Marc's query is - leave things as they are.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

I agree with leaving number of ZDs as is. To split the SE zone on numbers alone would be a mistake. Consistently, despite it's numbers, that zone has shown the least amount of interest in the Association. Typically, even with proxies, they barely make their quorum at AZMs. Perhaps that will change with new leadership in the form of a new ZD this year. Maybe consideration should be given to evening out the numbers within those southern Ont. zones so that a single zone doesn't carry the weighted vote?

As far as the notion that MAAC politics are "region" driven? That was not my experience. I found "politics" was "issue and personality" driven. If anything, it was 4 of the 5 Ontario zones against the rest of the country on issues. The "big 3" political issues had nothing to do with anybody feeling "left out"; 1) Proposal to sell HQ and move it to Tillonburg (SW zone) 2) Who got elected President 3) World Scale 2002 cost. I list the move HQ proposal as No.1 because the "political lines" were drawn on that issue and had everything to do with the personality clashes related to No. 2 & 3. ie: "can't the rest of you understand that a big new HQ/Museum/National flying site is the best thing for MAAC"......or...... "How can you vote that guy in as Prez, We can't stand him and will never support anything he does regardless of it's merit".

It's not pretty, but that's the way it was. It certainly didn't end with my passing as was evident with the insurance issues earlier this year and SW zone's ZD getting his hands slapped precipitating the "moving on" of SW and SE's ZD. The good news is that the executive got their personal issues behind them and core issues like insurance seemed to have the board's focus away from personalities. 5 new ZDs (personalities) may make things interesting. SW zone's politics won't change with their new ZD, but the time will tell how the other 4 peronalities mix it up.

Wayne Miller

Hi,

I have been following MAAC issues here and at R C C, and thought it would be best if I started posting directly to their site, this way they would know any concerns that may be brought up. I went to their site and was surprised to find that I could only email directly to a recipient at the MAAC site, there is no forums or discussion groups. By limiting access to the executive by private email leaves it solely up to them to respond or not - no other member knows what issues have been addressed.

Does anyone know why MAAC does not have forums or discussion groups at their site? It seems to me that it would allow valuable input for them.

Yes, I know, there would be a lot of unfounded complaints and miss information posted, but it would at least give the MAAC the opportunity to respond to any myths and correct any wrong information/rumours right at the source.

Thanks,

Wayne Miller

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

ABSOLUTELY!!!! [sm=thumbup.gif]

Jim_McIntyre

Ok, I'll recycle my response to Wayne's recycled post.

... there is a not so fine line between public relations and the discussion that take place in forums.
Do you really think it's in MAAC's best interest to host their critics on a site intended to promote the hobby?
I did a demo this weekend, and handed out a bunch of MAAC brochures. I think the MAAC site is a good place to send potential hobbyists, with some work it could be a great site. If the "anti-whatever" dollards were permitted to post their soapbox opinions there, I would have a much different opinion. [:@]