RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Ken,

Every year the Aero Club submits an audited financial statement. The MAAC office has copies.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Well since you asked , I am a small business owner in a very seasonal line of work. Although this allows me much freedom through much of the year, there is a 2-4 month stretch where I often don't even have time to check my email let alone these forums. For this reason I was, in the past, unable to properly honour my commitment whrn I did serve as a communications liason for a local R/c car racing club. Now you know!!;);)

And britbrat, you are right...I could be anybody.....SO WHAT! Does MAAC have enemies or competition or something to be afraid of? And as far as privacy legislation goes, it does not affect information not linked to a specific individual, i.e. statistics, percentages etc are not covered under the act. Average member age for last 10 yrs. would be a start. Oh yeah, I forgot....some people may not have supplied their age...well what about those who did.

Britbrat, this is the perfect example of what I meant before when I talked about "things which don't work, we tried it": Usually they were implemented poorly by people who doubted the idea's validity. so where lies the problem, in the idea or the executuion? This of course is an important distinction. It's kinda like how here you just said how impossible it would be to provide the info, but apparently your reasons lack fortitude.....I was able to counter quite easily...

WHO COUNTERS THE NAYSAYERS IN MAAC?

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

If my math is correct that leaves you 8-10 months of the year that you have at least some time to help forge MAAC into your vision....thats more time than most have I would say :)

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

...............old guys driving fast is usually not a good idea. :D

ps: Are you to the point you pull your pants up over your navel yet? [&:]

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

The improper vote was 9 to 4 while I was in the zone rep job for a month ( I volunteered to do it as no one esle wanted to do it) the other 9 had been on the board for a few years so the vote was quite sound.

Amazing that over 2/3 of the board decided to vote "improper". the vote was reversed after a few months ( not "quickly") after an immense pressure tactics by Mr. Larkin.

While Mr. Larkin spent $1600.00 unathorized by the board to pressure the board to change this improper vote, the remaining board members spent $0.00

CAC would do the Nats for $2000 that they made at Nats 2005.

In the fall of 1995 Aero Club wanted MAAC to $40,000 in fees, maac president Rick Reid said no, the other MAAC member (s) nominated to the ACC wanted to pay this amount.

Rick Reid said no, called a vote of the board, the board voted 9 to 4 to support Rick Reid. Rick Reid proposed a plan to work with the ACC. Mr. Larkin did not like the majority vote or the Rick Reid plan and started his campaign againt the majority board vote.


At the 1996 MAAC agm, the board members to show their apprecaition of Dave's tactics on the "improper ACC vote" voted against the nomination of Mr. Larkin for MAAC executive and a few minutes later again voted against the nomination of Mr. Larkin for MAAC vp, in essence a huge rejection of Mr. Larkin by the majority of the board.

Even "idiot" Kenair could have made it to the executive as it was anybody but Dave at that AGM..

The Piece de la resistance was the Sunday open 96 AGM where the "cruxification" of Rick Reid" took place, I can't remember who the sargeant of arms was but his biased actions were a ................. we'll some will never forget.

After this, the ACC fee is now $16,000 annually, CAC would do the Nats for $2000 that they made at Nats 2005.

So when the skewering of Wayne Bransfeld began I was not suprised at the start or at the outcome, the precendent was set.


There is no slamming or bammin, just setting the record straight at the 1996 agm as I was there.

What was sown has now come to bear..................

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

I promise not to exceed 220. [8D] What navel? :eek:

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Well nerd, I'm glad that you're here to save us, and I might add that it is so refreshing to see a modest genius at work. I do believe that a new faith is born -- The Church of the Hypothetical Imperative -- complete with Messiah.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

I should add that Dave Larkin like Rick Reid and Wayne Bransfield, is a heck of a guy even though I don't agree with his maac politics and Dave and others should probably should be in the MAAC Hall of Fame.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Ken said Again deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Apart from Rick, no other MAAC members were nominated to the ACC, though Jack Humphreys was then the Aero Club VP. All that happened was that the Federal Government had withdrawn its contribution to the funding of the Aero Club. It is not a question of demonizing the Aero Club, which is nothing more than an association of the various Canadian aerosport organizations acting as Canada's national aero club. So the issue was how to make up the missing funds. Bear in mind that 75% of the membership of the Aero Club are our MAAC members and consequently we have far and away the biggest voting block on the Aero Club Board. I'm sure some people would have been happy to saddle MAAC with all the extra costs, but it was just a matter of working out between the various associations how to handle the new fee structure. None of these associations had been consulting on how to solve the problem, so no progress was being made. Rick's approach was first to offer to pay the Aero Club a horrendous amount to run our FAI programme (don't ask me why, it made no sense to me) and then he withdrew MAAC from the Aero Club (which was a move that was not pre-authorized by the Board and which was not legal according to MAAC's constitution).

But the whole point is that a new and fair fee structure was not hard to develop once someone put some effort into getting discussions going between the associations. If Rick had done that, I'm sure he could have worked it all out too. Part of the solution was to increase the cost to FAI competitors by raising the cost of a FAI sporting licence.

Since then there has been a further adjustment in the methodology to set the fees, thanks to Colin Campbell and Richard Barlow, which effectively reduced MAAC's share, and then there was the international negotiation by Bob Clipsham to bring the FAI fees down, which reduced our Aero Club fees further.

You may not like the truth, Ken, but that doesn't give you the licence to distort it.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Dave, even if we listen to the Mulroney tapes on cbc over and over again - does one ever know what the truth really is.
Is there three sides to the truth also?

I too support the ACC but are we finding the ACC a service that fewer and fewer members need today. sometime we have to look reality in the eye as painful is it may be.

Kenair makes a point that the board must work as a team, this message seems to have reached the current maac board, except perhaps for one.

MAAC and ACC will be one of those maac history lessons that will be played over and over again for all of us to learn from, each point of view is valid and appreciated, many years later, members will say no one was right, no one was wrong.

keep up the good work!

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Are we? If I were a politician I would insinuate that stagnant or declining MAAC membership combined with the appearance and participation in new FAI categories would indicate an upward trend in value for ACC monies.... if I were a politician...

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

very creative insult! but what about the issues? see next post:

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

see above for actual questions, concerns etc....

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

It is quite reasonable to have two viewpoints on an event - but what I object to is totally erroneous information being injected. Unless one accepts lies as the third side to which you refer.

For the record, the four Board members (Neil Tinker, Ken Jones, Ray Brosinski and myself) who worked on solving the ACC problem did not win any popularity with the rest of the Board, and certainly not with the President. Although as far as I recall only Ken K was actually hostile to the ACC, the others had been sitting on their hands and didn't appreciate anyone taking the bit between their teeth.

However I took the precaution of submitting a report on the matter to the Board - and they voted to accept it without any changes. So when Ken K comes along and tries to rewrite history, he is on pretty shaky ground. Ken was given a copy of that report so he should have all the true facts available to him, should he care to consult it.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

....I've been trying to ignore this one, but it don't seem to wanna go away.

Thusly, I'll ask a question to Dave regarding the fee structure and disregard those old personal issues;

How "entrenched" is the structue?

I ask the question because I understand as little as two years back, a motion was tabled at the ACC meetings that would have had MAAC pay in excess of $40,000.00 instead of following your established fee-structure? Is it as simple as a majority vote to change that structure? Obviously, such a motion was defeated, but is such an increase a possibility each year?

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

The one inescapable fact is that every post from Dave Larkin, with regard to the ACC fiasco, has been consistent, and he offers documentation to support his position.

Opinions offered by his detractors have included wildly inaccurate information and different "facts" with every posting. Dave Larkin did not act alone, nor did he do so arbitrarily. He was representing a very large group of modellers who objected strenuously to flagrant abuse of our own bylaws.

The saddest thing to come out of all of this is that Rick Reid tends to be remembered for his one enormous mistake. Up to the point where that mistake was made, his record as a president was excellent. Had he chosen to acknowledge that he erred, and retracted, he would be held in high regard today.

Kenair suggested that the current Executive and Board are operating as a team, and happily this is the case. President, Carl Layden has emphasized teamwork from the day he took office, and thanks to him, there is less bickering on the Board than has been heard in recent years.

As to Kenair's comments that Dave is a really nice guy and deserving of nomination to the Hall of Fame. I would certainly support that. Thanks Ken for an honest and generous comment. The same goes for Wayne Bransfield. Wayne and I had many hot disputes, but his overall contribution to MAAC has been impressive. I am proud to regard him as a friend (who, according to Sharpie, now owes me a dinner).

This, I hope, puts us back on the original title of this thread. The Sighting of an Ex-President. On Christmas day I will, as usual, phone my old friend Frank Anderson, past president of MAAC from the sixties. Frank was the one who gave MAAC its first permanent address - Box 10, Islington, Ontario. Frank is the author of the famous "Blue Book" of American engines, that every collector regards as an essential reference.

I wonder how many of you remember him? If you do, contact me off line and I can put you in touch with Frank.

Richard Barlow

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Hi Marc,

I was with Colin Campbell when the two of us negotiated the current fee structure. After the "Fiasco" the MAAC policy changed to have an ACC rep who was NOT the President. The President would go to the meeting, but the voice would be that of the "ACC Representative". This was to ensure that nothing precipitous could be done in a fit of pique. I was that rep until I resigned the position and Dave Larkin took over.

The argument that we used was that if MAAC was to pay over 50% of the dues, MAAC should then have a total controlling interest. I explained that it was only fair that our voting rights should be proportional to our share of the expenses.

Not surprisingly, the other members of ACC were in no hurry to hand total control of everything connected with sport aviation to one organization. They backed off immediately and we wound up in a position that was very favourable to MAAC.

As to whether we could face another threat of paying the lions share of the costs - the same argument could be used again.

I think we are pretty safe, and Dave Larkin is well aware of this.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Well nerd, lets re-examine your posts, bearing in mind that you are a marketing person trying to sell us your ideas

Great pitch to your customers. How does it look to you as a marketing guy? How does it look to the guys who are stuck in the past & who obviously can't tell the difference between a club & a business? You know the ones -- the obviously incompetent MAAC Exec & Board.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Someone told me about that (ACC dues increase) a while back, I took it to be a rumour but coming from another member I now have to wonder if the large increase in maac dues is setting up up to support the ACC at any cost?

If Dave could clear the air on Marc's statement I would feel less ansy on the dues increase.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Alrighty then I guess you don't want to talk about these issues. I still feel strongly that maac has some issues to address, specifically an aging membership and the vast untapped market out there. I am an advocate for our hobby first, and maac second. I would be happy to continue this discussion but please, lets discuss the issues rather than trying to discredit!

yours truly, rcnerd, a proud maac member, flyer, mentor, trainer of rookies.


The only way to improve something is to look at *new* ideas.

Happy holidays to all of you, regardless of your politics.;)

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

We should take this back to the MAAC Sucks thread :) -- we are seriously hijacking this one.

Nerd, it isn't that new ideas aren't wanted, or needed -- it is as much about how you present your views of MAAC, your views of fellow MAAC members, how you present yourself, & how you make your arguments.

You aren't helping by presenting your arguments as though you are the only one who thinks of this stuff, & that all of your ideas are new and wonderfull -- you aren't, & they aren't. Nor is it helpfull to imply that opposing views, doubts, or rejection come from backward looking persons -- they aren't.

The guys that have been discussing this stuff with you on this forum aren't dummies, nor are the MAAC Exec & Board, which are populated with very tallented & successfull business persons, as well as with astonishingly tallented & experienced modellers.

By comparison, you need to boost your credibility. Chat nicely & the exchange of views will go much better.

Lets discuss this more on the "I'm sick of MAAC" thread.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

[/quote]
Someone told me about that (ACC dues increase) a while back, I took it to be a rumour but coming from another member I now have to wonder if the large increase in maac dues is setting up up to support the ACC at any cost?

If Dave could clear the air on Marc's statement I would feel less ansy on the dues increase.
[/quote]


May I tell you, as one of the Executive who prepared the budget, that the ACC fees were taken as being a relative constant, fluctuating only to the level of changes in the dollar versus the Euro.

The dues increase was based on a variety of factors, the ACC was not one of them

Richard Barlow

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

In the time in which I have been ACC Rep - coming up to three years now, the subject of fees has not come up at all except in respect of the overall reduction caused by the cutting of the ACC budget in response to the revision of the FAI national fee structure.

Before that, Richard is your best source, but I recall that at the time of the last revision a new formula was proposed which was not unfavourable to MAAC.

I have no idea where the $40K came from. The total ACC budget is around that! Somebody likes to write pure fiction. And certainly somebody enjoys spreading absolute nonsense.

The fee structure is essentially arranged so that the larger associations have their fee per head discounted. As MAAC is by far the largest association, we get the biggest discount. We pay around $1 a head, the next largest association pays about $3 and it goes on from there to close to $20. Understandably there are a few full size people who want the modellers to pay the same as them, per head, but it isn't going to happen. Almost everybody understands the modeller's point of view and are grateful for the chunk that MAAC as a whole provides. After all many of the full size enthusiasts are or were modellers.

The other factor is that the size of the association is reflected in the number of votes on the ACC Board. It isn't linear but MAAC has by far and away the largest single block of votes.

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

Hmmnnn.... perhaps I'm rather jaded but, I tend to see most improvements as building on tried and true principles.

In my line of work (software), there is much marketing hype about new ideas. The successful ones invariably turn out to be a repackaging of old ideas that work. The vast majority of dismal failures are net new ideas ... granted, with the occasional exception but, at what cost? Witness the internet stock crash.....

I have no aversion to new ideas, as long as they don't include the destruction of sound existing practices. I'm a fan of fantasy but not so far removed from reality to attempt to torch an old bird with the expectation of a phoenix rising from the ashes to replace it.

So far your new ideas do not sound new to me. Nor, where I am privy to the information, were they tested by jaded or slack-jawed individuals as you infer. You would be surprised how many intelligent, entrepreneurial individuals comprise the active members of MAAC. Before criticising the efforts of other, spend a few hours in the trenches to prove your worth. Got a new idea? Great! Do the research, come up with a plan, sell me on it and I'll be there as a catalyst of change.

A word of advice, take it or leave it; continue to spew half baked ideas while criticising existing results from previous efforts, and you will find little audience for your musings regardless of the venue, MAAC or otherwise. I don't know what your work environment is like but, In my job, if I went in to senior management as unarmed as you come into these discusssions, I'd be flipping burgers faster than I could utter the words "ok, I have another idea....".

RE: Ex-Prez sighting
 

That's why I own the company instead of working for it....500% sales increase in 4 years!:D

If you were my client I wouldn't flog the dead horse.. I'd just increase my rates.