adaptabl

It sure is nice for someone to explain his views and answer concerns in a professional way.

jhelps

Thanks Richard

thought it would be something like carrying on under the old system and then switching to the new.

One last question however and that is while the old bylaws spelled out that the ZD carried unexercised proxies, the new ones do not. Could you perhaps point me to the right place?

thanks

Jeff

mustang one

Chris when you ask your questions one month after making your accusations what would expect. It is almost like you and your 2 buddies went ( oh **** we forgot to ask him a question ).

John, one of these days you will get the facts stright,

Gingertoad

You have made some very interesting statements as to the requirements under Corporations Canada. Now can you back those statements up by showing us where these statements are in Corporations Canada. Bull**** does baffel brains

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

GOOD GRIEF PALMER if your going to let Chuckles write your lines at least get him to put in a few spelling mistakes and a sentence or two that no one can figure out. Like watching a couple of parrots on the same perch. WILL THE REAL JABBER PLEASE STAND UP?????????????????????????????????????????????[sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif][sm=lol.gif]

britbrat

Gee -- it's old Chuck posing as mustang one -- rather than using a ghost-writer (damned nearly genuine English) & posing as Jabba, like he did a few posts ago -- but then, quite amazingly, Jabba returned as himself (it's soooo easy to tell) -- it's all so terribly confusing -- what does it all mean???

I would guess either 42, or nothing at all.

Morison

What's to work out? Gerry chaired a MAAC event, he needs to sumbit a final financial report that ballances with known figures and remit the surplus to the association to hold for the next MAAC Nationals held in the SW Zone. Why would anyone think that Gerry has any position to negotiate from? As a Nats committee chair he answers to the board ... and would answer to the board until they have the information they are satisfied with.

As for duties of a director ...

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../cl00692e.html

particularly:

Practical implications
The duty of honesty and good faith has various practical implications. Directors must:

disclose the entire truth in their dealings with the corporation and actively avoid any impropriety or dishonesty;

have full allegiance to the corporation's mission and further its cause;

resign as a director where the director has any personal prejudices or beliefs that are inconsistent with the corporation's mission and that might interfere with the duties owed to the corporation;

place the interests of the corporation above personal self-interest in all dealings with the corporation and actively avoid all potential conflicts of interest;

fulfill all of the corporation's reporting obligations with honesty and good faith, and accurately represent the corporation's financial or other position;

maintain adequate and accurate books of account, records and minutes of the corporation;

ensure that all corporate decisions are implemented in accordance with the applicable board resolution;

accurately portray the corporation's programs and objectives to the general public and to any requesting government authority;

not disclose any information acquired in connection with their position as directors that might be harmful to the interests of the corporation and that is not already available to the public; and, (this is where Gerry and Harry went astray last year)

fulfill the terms and restrictions of any special purpose trust fund maintained by the corporation, honestly and in good faith.

gingertoad

Thanks Keith,

You beat me to it!

The responsibilities of directors are clearly spelled out on that site and also in the book "Primer for directors...." that I alluded to earlier.

It is interesting that some folk cannot, or will not, read and accept documents of this type. Now, be prepared for more accusations, mis-quotes, half truths and items out of context. They are bound to follow. Perhaps we will be treated to a new alias or two?

You are doing a great job with the magazine - keep it up.

Richard

gingertoad

Hi Jeff, with pleasure.

Go to the new proposed bylaws, section 37 part 2

Cheers

Richard

Jabba

WRONG Dennis I typed it myself. So all you can do again is belittle someone for trying.
At least I’m willing to stand up and do something all you can do is cut up others.

Maybe you should leave the ROOT BEER alone for a while.

see I had a error I had to fix....

Jabba

same message twice? hmmmm

jhelps

thanks !!

Applehoney

My Feedback: (3)

>same message twice? hmmmm

Hmmmmm indeed! I guess that comes from being too accustomed to double-talk, Jabba???

Jason Holdaway

Aww man, these afternoon shifts suck!!! [] I was reading through the posts, just waiting to get to the end, all happy to reply something similar to this. And you guys had to ruin it for me. [>:] Thanks a lot!

At this years AGM, I will have no choice but to propose a motion stating that I, and only I, am entitled to get the first dig in. Sorry fellas.

Jason Holdaway

and for the record, mine would have been a lot better too [sm=biggrin.gif]

sivlE

Palmer in response to your questions/ comments:

1- YOU stat the Chuck has breached confidence. WHAT did he do? At the last AZM which I attended both Gerry and Chuck indicated to the members present that they were asked by the BOD not to disclose issues concerning the changes in the by-laws until they were finalized and posted in the next MAAC mag. When I questioned Gerry on this and asked why he was breaching a confidence and gave him an example of why we shouldn't, he claimed that it was in the interest of being transparent and Chuck supported Gerry's statements on this topic and went on to read alloud what the changes were. This position of transparency also caused problems with the insurance issue. The funny thing is, is that I don't see Chuck being very transparent when dealing with his issues, not answering questions and logging to these forums as someone else in an effort to pat himself on the back.

2-Next you say he did not follow protocol for the financial submissions of what the NATS. HOWMANY times you have to be told CHUCK was NOT the Chairperson/CD of the 2005 NATS submitting the budget was NOT up to HIM. Are you trying to tell me that Chuck has no involement with CAC? Further more the bid for the NATS was presented by Chuck which did not include all of the required info. As I understand it, the proxies have not been turned in from the last AZM. Chuck is not following the rules why?

3-Chuck has offered to (along with Gerry the Chairperson of the 2005 NATS) to sit down with MAAC on about 4 different times, but the MAAC board does not seem to want to do that. I guess talking this out face to face is not what the board wants.
The MAAC board has got a lawyer – and Gerry has got his lawyer, and the board has left it at that. IF the board cannot solve this problem what make you think YOU can. It is not up to me to solve this probem, nor do I desire to. This is between MAAC and Chuck, besides this is only your opinion on what MAAC did or did not say. I trust MAAC will resolve these issues properly and proffesionally.

4-Peter has told you SEVERAL times how the CAC came into existance, so now you do not believe him. I think he should know that. I value my friendship with Pete too much and to think that you even brought his name up on this forum bothers me, but I will say this. Pete is an upstanding individual with his direction in promoting the hobby only and making it the best it can be. I agree with Pete that the idea behind having an annual event in our area is a good one but I think that the way in which it was done was wrong. Pete knows my views on this and I know his. We are still great friends and it will remain that way. Your feable attempt to curcumvent this is in vain. For the record, Pete had nothing to do with the way in which the CAC was announced and was only in it for hobby.

5- The Zone Director has the right NOT to have his name dragged through the MUD just because you do not have the same point of view. The ZD is responsible and accountable for his actions. I have the right to ask any questions I like. End of story.

6-YOU have NEVER called Chuck to ask him ONE single question. AGAIN other board members do not answer question on public forms like this so WHY should CHUCK. Yes they do. Also, you found it prudent to post the CAC information on it so why can't Chuck answer a few questions. Mr. Barlow certainly trys to keep things straight on these forums. I think that Chuck can't answer the questions and that is why he tried to silence everybody with legal threats. Not a good leadership quality eh?

7- MAAC bashing well from were I stand it is YOU and Dennis that are MAAC bashing. HMMM that is an intersting allegation Palmer. You are wrong and I challenge you to show evidence of where I have bashed MAAC. It seems that you are trying very hard to try to sway peoples opinions but at the end of the day the truth will come out.

8-NOT only that but OUR club.... YOU club and mine is LOOSING it’s reputation because of this.
I as ASST. ZD have had several people call me asking what is the problem in the Windsor Club, and have talked to the club president about this. If this is true, we know who to blame right? Our club has absolutley no involement in any of this and if anybody thinks otherwise, too bad.

9- Dennis has the right to ask for proxies. BUT the people should also be asking Chuck about his side of the story. It maybe too late for people to start asking Chuck questions, he has had ample opportunity to address these issues. Rather than pretend to be someone else he could of spent his time more productively. you are correct, Dennis does have the right.

10- From the club members I have talked to Dennis is LOSSING support. From the club members I have talked to, Chuck is LOSING support. You know Palmer, I really don't think that more than 1% even care about the politics and just want to fly and have fun. I don't really think that Dennis is looking for support but only trying to expose the crap that our ZD is doing. I am sure that Chuck has his supporters and believe everything he tells them. So what?

11- The CAC came into existence just like any other MAAC CLUB. ALL the CAC wants to do is have ONE event a year, plane and simple…. Here is chance for MAAC members to QUALIFY for the US Scale Masters, Top Gun and a new Scale JET event. WHATS wrong with that. AT NO COST TO MAAC, or the MAAC membership. Cac did not come into existance just like any other club, it was surrounded with manipulation and trying to undermine MAAC. The rest of your comment I agree with.

12- When I asked Richard Barlow WHY the MAAC Board was disapproving the CAC, all I got was “well we do not like the word Canadian in the name�

The AMA does not seem to mine the US Scale Masters (which is has nothing to do with the AMA) I do not see the AMA getting upset about them using US in there name. Or how about the IMAA the International Miniature Aircraft Ass. The AMA did not through a hisses fit over that name.

IF the average MAAC member cannot see by now that Dennis has a PERSONNEL problem with Chuck then they need glasses.

It’s NOT the ZD job to SUPPORT the decisions of the board. It is the ZD job the support the decisions of the ZONE which were brought up at the ZONE MEETING which Chuck is doing. (again read what Richard Barlow wrote – and you will see that he says the same thing… that the ZD job is to VOTE the way his ZONE has given him direction at the ZONE meeting.) See Mr. Barlow's response

13- You were at the zone meeting and did not vote against or for ANY of the item brought up from the zone. So your right you vote did not count because you did not us it. Wrong, I did vote against and abstained on something else (can't remember what it was) but I made my concerns clear. Funny how they did not make it into the minutes though.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

....don't confuse the issue with facts, sivlE. (<---humour)

The problem you are going to have is finding a replacement with thick enough skin to sustain the ankle-biting that will ensue.

From personal experience, some never know when to quit or admit when they are wrong.................. and will have trouble letting go.

You folks need to find a director with no connection to any of this mess or any of the last 1/2 dozen messes/controversy with origins there. Although I give Dennis credit for having the courage to speak out, he's probably not your best choice because of his close involvement in this stuff.

The smartest thing we did when it was time for me to go was convince our current ZD, Jeff Esslinger, to put his name forward. He was relatively new to the hobby and didn't carry any of the baggage (besides flying with me a few times) from any internal zone politics. Result: Great ZD, all members have accepted him and we've moved on.

There must be someone down there who travels around to many of the events and has contacts with most of the clubs, has the respect for being a good personable guy and a dedicated modeler who many, outside his own club, recognize? Maybe Pete,is this guy?

After identifying this person, and bending his/her arm, you need to find an active member in each club to do the leg work, collecting proxies for the next AZM (maybe sooner, depending on how motivated you are.) Don't kid yourself, do some leg work, attend some meetings/events and schmooze. With all this past BS, if you find the right person, there will be no need for any negative campaigning. Your zone has to be ready for a wholesale change by now. If successful, maintain those club contacts because they'll take a run at you for the next few years until they finally get back to flying again.

The zone taking care of their own business is the best way to end all this nonsense. If the board actually has to get to the point of "forcing" a zone director out, it will end nothing and we'll be having this debate for some time to come.

IMO

Jabba

Well my turn:
answer from 1: What Chuck read at the AZM was right out of MAAC MAG. All they were saying was they believed that the MAAC membership should be KEPT informed.

answer 2: Chuck is a member of the CAC just like about 25 to 30 others. NO CHUCK did not present the BID for the 2005 or 06 NATS that was the Chairpersons job GERRY. The 2005 NATS committee decide NOT to run the NATS for 2006. Justs like the committee in BC. LETS see you step up and run the NATS for 2007.

answer 3: here you go again saying CHUCK is responceable for the budget of the 2005 NATS. HOW thick in the head are you he is not was not the chairperson for the NATS. HE worked the NATS just like over 50 to 75 others did.

answer 4: Nice to know you SUPPORT the IDEA behind the CAC at least. As for how it was formed. We I sure Peter has talked to you about that too.

answer 5: YES you have the right to ask questions. BUT again all the questions you have asked have been on public forms. Again most ZD and executive members do not answer question on forms. HAVE you called him to ask ONE question? PLUS you have done LOTS more then ask questions you have defamed his charcater.

answer 6: I posted info on the CAC yes. CHUCK for one is not on the executive of the CAC, YOU been told that several times. IF you want to ask a question on the CAC call me or ask Peter, or CALL Chuck (but since legal action is pending I doubt he will talk to you. Which is what happens when there is legal action happening). This legal action was started after several people defamed his character - he has the right to stop this. Richard only answers very few questions and only when his name is bought up. WHEN I asked Richard WHAT the MAAC Baord has against the CAC he would not reply on the board. period (has you say)

answer 7: Well you have your opinion and I can have my.

answer 8: YES the blame falls on YOU and Dennis and Chris. YOU right the club has nothing to do with it. And that's what I telling people. IF people go back and look they see 3 from Windsor and maybe another 3 from the SW zone and 3 more outside the zone doing all this. Then maybe 4 from Chuck's side.

answer 9: gee we agree..... Dennis is willing to drive 9 hours one way to Ottawa to attend the AGM GREAT. I've attended a few myself. Dennis will have PROXIES, he will get to VOTE on the RESOLUTIONS and the RECOMMENDATIONS only. (now I could be wrong here but IF I remember right that is ALL he will get to vote on).

answer 10: Well Dennis and YOU, and several others think it is CHAP. OTHER think CHUKC is doing a FINE JOB.
YES are CLUB is SICK of this. AS you say most members just want to fly.

answer 11: WHAT did the CAC do to undermine MAAC. MAAC (the board) put out requirements for the 2006 NATS. THEY have that right. THE COMMITTEE said NO we do not want to run the 2006 NATS. AGAIN BC turned it down for one reason or another and that was OK. A group in Quebec are putting on a 2006 Scale Aero NATS WHICH is GREAT, another group in OTTAWA wants to have a GLIDER NATS - GREAT, the only question I have is ---- were they held to the same standards as GERRY was. Did they have to supply a detail list of all the volunteers that are going to work the event, which as part of what the board wanted Gerry to supply 11 months before the event, give me a break.
Several groups have form in the US to have events. THIS is ALL the CAC wants to do. Canada does not have the membership in #'s to support events like the US. Again group like the IMAA - US SCALE MASTERS - TOP GUN and more are not AMA clubs. AGAIN the CAC is a CLUB WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER MAAC. If we were a MAAC club we would have to follow the MAAC rule. PLUS again the BY-LAWS says we have the right to a hearing before being kicked out. WHY is the board NOT even following there own BY-LAWS.

Jabba

Well I'm done here.

This is all been said on RC Canada and again here.

Nothing has changed.

AGAIN - Dennis and John seem not to want to talk it out face to face. Just here.

HAVE a good time.

I've supported MAAC and my CLUB and my ZONE more then the average member.

sivlE

Palmer there is no point in addressing issues with you as you don't seem (want) to understand the points I was making. I have said my peace and won't bother responding to your opinions any longer. Please respond to this post so you can have the benifit of the "last word".

Applehoney

My Feedback: (3)

To the theme of 'Batman'


Jabba, Jabba, Jabba, Jabba ...

Jabber, Jabber, Jabber, Jabber ....

'CHUCK-SPEAK '!!!!.....


repeat ......

ccrebidoux

My Feedback: (3)

Hey!!! I got an answer!!!!! All be it, from a different thread!!!

So now it's accusations. Not threats?? Or sorta threads and not really accusations??? Or visa versa???

Yes, I waited a month. I don't forget things, I wanted to give you a fair time to answer the questions ask. If you didn't want to answer the one I asked on RCC, why not e-mail me or PM me?? So I e-mailed you. We asked YOU Chuck, because YOU are our Zone Director, aren't we supposed to ask you the questions about MAAC?? Not Gerry Shaw. I don't recall any accusations by me or "my two buddies", just questions.


Chris

britbrat

Will the real Patch please stand up!!!

I suggest my boy Jason as the new SW ZD. He has wonderfull genes [sm=thumbup.gif], a charming AAA personality , boldness blended with modesty [>:], painfull truthfullness [&:], great pilot skills [8D], witt and discretion[:@]. Most notably he is semi-literate (a HUGE improvement) [sm=sunsmiley.gif]

You guys can hardly do better than that.

Sharpy01

My Feedback: (12)

A Challenge to Dennis, and Mr Smith:

Regardless of who comes out on top, it must be painfully obvious that the hard feelings between your two sides will continue.

How about facing reality and actually considering what would be best for your members? ............which is neither of you.

You two................and your lieutenants need to step away and keep your fingers out for a couple of years. Go and organize your events, participate, maybe mend some fences, save some face, but get the heck out of the political arena or these ridiculous battles will continue.

I know it's a tall order, but try and block all the personal BS from your brains, put them together (cyberly as we don't want to see any blood)
and come up with a candidate that has no previous MAAC political involvement over the past 7 or so years............. that everyone can agree on.

I'm sure your members would more than appreciate a peaceful end to this drama and you may just find that the sun of the modeling world still rises and sets without your input.

..... seriously.

jhelps

Marc

Very nice sentiment and a noble goal, however as you and I both know from personal experience the newbie on the block is considered easy pickings for folks who want to try and project their influence. It will take a strong willed individual to resist those pressures.

Hopefully some neutral party with a thick skin will emerge to sort this out.


JH

Jason Holdaway

Thanks pa, but I speak my mind too freely, and don't have the time and dedication needed to fill the shoes of a GOOD ZD. Maybe Richard wouldn't mind moving to SW Ontario

I think Dennis would do a fine job IMO. It is the same people that have been causing the problems for years now. Would it really matter if the new ZD was new or not? Many of you know that Dennis and I have had our differences in the past. For me to openly show my support for him not only here, but by voting for him at the AZM goes to show that I really believe that Dennis wants what is in the best interest of the hobby and all MAAC members