This Board is Out of Control
Executive Summary.
This is a very long article, with a lot of detail provided. In order to allow the reader to determine whether they wish to commit the time and effort to explore all of this we provide here an Executive Summary of what you will find within the full article. MAAC’s Board has rushed to convict a member of MAAC, an ex-zone director, of causing the most serious calamity that this association has ever experienced. The evidence used can most kindly be described as scanty. The mechanism used for this conviction was unjust in the extreme – in this article it is justifiably likened to the iniquities of the Spanish Inquisition. A more just and fair process is available, but was denied to the victim. Compounding the injustice of this process, and the accusations it sprang from, is the fact that it was used by the Board as an attempt to cover up that it was its own incompetence that created, and then exacerbated, the situation – not the actions of a dedicated and hard-working, ex-director. Further, it is revealed that this is not an isolated incident, there is a pattern of such behaviour. Finally, there is a warning about the path forward we are currently on.
********
In this article you will find:-
- A Description of the Injustice Carried Out
- A Review of the By-Law
- The Board’s Failed Commitment to Revise a Flawed Disciplinary Clause
- A Review of Alternative Avenues
- What Was the Nature of the Complaints?
- How Was the Inquisition Conducted?
- What Was the Evidence?
- What Actually Created the Negative Consequences?
- Why Did This Happen?
- What is Next?
If any reader thinks that this is something of a ‘storm in a teacup’ – just remember – this can happen to any member of MAAC – even you.
A Description of the Injustice.
In one of its most recent acts, the Board of Directors of MAAC has committed a grave injustice against a long-standing member of the Association. The member, who has been so badly abused by this Association, has not only been a member of it for the majority of his life – he has also served the Association, and his local club, faithfully and well in numerous ways over all that time, including having been a member of the Board of Directors himself for over a decade. He is currently one of only a very few members of MAAC who is actively conducting a youth development program – teaching a number of young people how to build and fly a radio-controlled model airplane of their own! In spite of a previous MAAC president’s active discouragement of any such effort – he is doing so very successfully.
This man was accused under an iniquitous By-Law, that itself has been the subject of challenge recently; was found to be guilty in a secret hearing wherein a sentence was also passed. All this without him even being made aware of any charges, much less able to challenge any evidence. He was then notified that he had been found guilty of the charges against him, and that a sentence had been imposed upon him, and that he had twenty days in which to provide a written submission to the Board to convince them that they should change their minds. The Board – the same Board that had already convicted him – would then decide, within a further twenty days, whether there were grounds for them to reverse their previous decision, and that decision would then be final, with no possibility to appeal.
That process was carried out, with a minor variation that we will discuss later, and the suspension of the victim’s membership in the Association was confirmed on Monday March 6th, 2023. That might seem to be due process to some; we will endeavour here to show that it was nothing of the sort.
A Review of the By-Law.
The By-Law in question here is Clause 12 of MAAC’s By-Laws document. We will undertake a review of that By-Law, and its recent history, because it is important for the membership to be aware of their vulnerability under this Clause – as the member referred to above has found. We would recommend that you read this section but, if you feel that you know (or don’t need to know) this background, then skip forward to the facts of the case.
At the 2022 AGM, Clause 12 of the By-Laws was challenged, in two separate submissions – one a recommendation and the other a resolution – and a fully reasoned alternative to the Clause was proposed. We will not provide the whole of that submission here, it is available in the material that was sent to every member of MAAC in the supporting documentation for the 2022 AGM, but we will reproduce the explanation for why the clause, as written, is completely inappropriate for a recreational association. (Note: It is difficult to imagine what sort of organization a clause of this nature could be considered to be suitable for.) Highlighted in blue, below, is the submission to the 2022 AGM on why Clause 12 should have been removed in its entirety and replaced:-
The existing clause #12 creates a situation which is to the potential detriment of all members of the Association. For information, here is the text of the current Clause 12.
12. Discipline of Members
- violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
- carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
- for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.
In the event that the board determines that a member should be expelled or suspended from membership in the Corporation, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, shall provide twenty (20) days notice of suspension or expulsion to the member and shall provide reasons for the proposed suspension or expulsion. The member may make written submissions to the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, in response to the notice received within such twenty (20) day period. In the event that no written submissions are received by the president, the president, or such other officer as may be designated by the board, may proceed to notify the member that the member is suspended or expelled from membership in the Corporation. If written submissions are received in accordance with this section, the board will consider such submissions in arriving at a final decision and shall notify the member concerning such final decision within a further twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of the submissions. The board’s decision shall be final and binding on the member, without any further right of appeal.
Should a member whose membership is terminated, suspended, limited or not renewed be an officer or hold membership in any committee of the Corporation at the time of termination, suspension, limitation or non-renewal, his or her position Shall automatically be vacated. Notwithstanding any other provision of these By-laws, the terminated, suspended, limited or non-renewed member Shall not hold office as an officer or a committee membership, whether then or any time later, without first obtaining the approval of the Board.
The main problems with the clause #12 as it stands are:-
1. It lacks any substantive definition of which acts committed by members shall attract punishment or any way of judging which offences are most serious and which are not.
2. It contains provisions which allow a simple majority of the Board of Directors to define an offence, including doing so after the fact, and then to determine an accused’s guilt.
3. It lacks any defined process by which perceived wrongdoings may be brought to the attention of the adjudicating body.
4. It addresses only crime and punishment and carries no aspect of rehabilitation of offenders.
5. It lacks any scale of punishment to fit the crime.
6. There is no differentiation between first-time and repeat offenders.
7. There is no provision for rehabilitation or restitution.
8. It lacks any realistic appeal process – the appeal being heard by the same tribunal that determined guilt in the first place.
There is only one way to describe a process of this sort – it is an inquisition – which makes it completely inappropriate for our, or any other, recreational association.
In addition to the above critique of the existing By-Law an alternative was provided, for consideration by the 2022 AGM, which sought to correct the gross deficiencies in clause 12 and provide a fair and equitable process for the discipline of members of the association.
Both of those submissions were dismissed by the Board, in their recommendation to the AGM on the disposition of them, in the following manner:-
Board Recommendation: The issues with the disciplinary process are known, but replacing a volunteer drafted By-law and policy of this level of importance with another volunteer drafted By-law and policy is unwise, given the seriousness of the situation these are intended to address. MAAC is already in the process of identifying changes in this process through our Legal Counsel.
The Board of Directors recommends the members vote AGAINST this resolution.
The Board’s Failed Commitment to Revise a Flawed Disciplinary Clause.
So, the Board recognized that there were deficiencies with this specific clause in the By-Laws, rejected a comprehensive alternative that would have introduced fairness and due process into the matter, much of which was transplanted from provisions in the existing Policy Manual, using as justification that it was “volunteer drafted”, and claimed that they were in the process of identifying changes in this process with a lawyer. As the Board of all Not-for-Profit Corporations consists entirely of volunteers the objection that it was “volunteer drafted” seems rather out of place.
As it stands, Clause 12 of the By-Laws creates a situation where the Board, in its own great wisdom, can determine what constitutes a crime (even declaring it to be a crime after the event if it wishes), determines who has committed a crime, determines the punishment for the crime, determines whether to believe contrary evidence, acts as the appeal court, and passes sentence. It is lawmaker, police force, prosecutor, judge, jury, appeal court, and executioner. And it does all of this in secret!
Notwithstanding all of this, the Board has not introduced a replacement for clause 12 in the year that has elapsed since then, and has now proceeded to use that clause, that they have admitted is flawed, to prosecute an outstanding member of the association and suspend his membership – with threats that there will be further punishment, in the form of restrictions placed upon his participation in the association in future, if he applies to renew his membership next year or thereafter.
Were there alternatives?
As noted above, there is a disciplinary clause in the By-Laws that is highly inappropriate, which even the Board who have now used it against a member, have agreed contains “issues”. This begs the question “Did the Board have any alternative available to them?” The answer to that question is that they most certainly did have. The Policy Manual contains two such provisions – 6.3 for the discipline of members and 6.4 for the discipline of Directors. We will not replicate those provisions here – they can be found on the MAAC website. Those provisions, which may themselves be imperfect, at least have the framework of fairness, evidence, and due process. The Board rejected that course in favour of an inquisition. We would like to repeat that one of those Policy Manual sections (and it is a detailed one) is specifically for the discipline of Directors.
What Was the Nature of the Complaints?
The charges leveled against the member of MAAC in question were:-
- That he approved four sites in controlled airspace, in violation of condition 3 of the Exemption, and in violation of the status quo agreement that was in place with Nav Canada.
- That, as an experienced director, he demonstrated an apparent lack of due diligence in the approval process.
- That the approval of these sites has led directly to MAAC suspending all outdoor flying activity, as well as NAV CANADA’s withdrawal of the status quo agreement, jeopardizing the future of any MAAC activities in controlled airspace.
- That in three of the four cases there was a direct personal gain because he was a member and chief instructor for the club in question.
These charges all pertain to actions that are alleged to have taken place while the member in question was a Director of MAAC. That being the case, it can legitimately be asked “Why wasn’t section 6.4 of the Policy Manual used?” We will get back to that subject a bit later, in another section of this article.
How was the Inquisition Conducted?
There is much to unpack about this whole process, and about the charges themselves, but let us first examine how this inquisition was carried out.
The Board met on January 23rd and heard the above complaints. At that meeting they determined that the membership of the accused should be suspended. The next day the president issued a letter to the accused advising him that his membership was suspended and that he had twenty days in which to provide a written response to the action. If no response was received by the Board by February 15th then there would be no further opportunity for redress and the suspension would remain in place. No evidence that had been used to support the allegations made against him was provided
The accused provided a first written response on February 3rd, followed by a second on February 14th and, at that time, asked for three things:-
That he be allowed to answer to the Board in-person, to address the charges
That he be provided with the evidence that had been used against him
That the hearing be open for all of the membership to hear if they desired
A response was received that his presence at the hearing was not provided for in the By-Law but that the Board would consider it. He was subsequently told that the Board had agreed to allow it. He was also told that there were no existing protocols for such a process (even though the Policy Manual does contain those protocols) and that he would be advised what the protocols would be once that had been decided. He was later advised that he would have 10 minutes to address the Board but that he would not be allowed in to the closed meeting until the time for his address and that he would have to leave immediately afterwards. Once that had been determined the member then requested that he be represented by another member of MAAC at the meeting. Again, the protocols in the Policy Manual allow for such a procedure, but this request was denied. He also requested to see the evidence that had been used against him in the prior determination of his guilt. That information had not been furnished with the notification of his suspension. After a second request, that information was provided.
The next thing to happen was that the accused member contracted Covid 19. He was one of the unfortunate ones who was severely sick from it – not sick enough to be hospitalized, but significantly debilitated nevertheless. He phoned the president and asked for the hearing to be delayed one week. The president responded that the Board would not be able to vote on that until minutes before he was due to appear, so he needed to be standing by. That is despite the fact that the president can determine the agenda for any Board meeting and has the authority to move an item from one meeting’s agenda onto a later one. It also ignores the fact that, if a vote was essential, an email vote on that change to the agenda could have easily been accomplished. The request was denied and the accused was forced to either appear while sick or else forfeit the tiny opportunity he had been given to defend himself in person.
The inquisition went ahead on March 6th, the accused was allowed his ten minutes to speak, handicapped though he was by the effects of his illness, and then he was shut out from the Board’s deliberation of his case. He was advised the next morning that the Board had confirmed his guilt in the matter and that he was to return his MAAC membership card forthwith.
As if this travesty wasn’t enough in itself, there is one more aspect of this despicable act that should be revealed. The person who brought the accusations against this former Director is himself a Director, on the current Board. The accused was allowed ten minutes to defend himself – from his sick bed. His accuser sat on the tribunal that heard the case, had not only been privy to the defendant’s argument but had opportunity to provide counter-argument prior to the hearing. He was then allowed not only to vote on the matter but also to provide further argument and even possibly introduce other issues if he wanted. The accused had no access to any discussion subsequent to his brief appearance, and no opportunity to counter it.
Tomas de Torquemada, Inquisitor General for Aragon, Valencia and Catalonia, would be proud. This is what your association has become. Unfortunately, there is more to this grievous story.
What Was the Evidence?
The accused in this case provided documentary evidence to show that the charges against him were unfounded. You – the members – have not been made aware of any of it. Let us look at the evidence for the charges, in the order that we have presented those charges in the section above on the Nature of the Complaints.
Complaint #1. The first complaint was that the accused approved four sites in controlled airspace, in violation of condition 3 of the Exemption, and in violation of the ‘status quo’ agreement that was in place with Nav Canada. The details of the Exemption should be well known to you, but you might be unaware of the “Status Quo” agreement. That agreement, with Nav Canada, apparently required that MAAC provide a list of flying sites that existed in controlled airspace prior to the June, 2019, introduction of the Exemption to the new Part IX of CARs. In a moment we’ll get back to why we use the word “apparently” in the previous sentence.
There is a very important distinction between the requirements of the Exemption and the requirements of the ‘status quo’ agreement. The Exemption required that the sanctioning of all sites in controlled airspace should occur only with the prior written agreement of the controlling agency or user agency for the area. In order to avoid a flood of requests for the written approval of sites that had already existed safely within controlled airspace prior to the introduction of Part IX it seems that Nav Canada came to an agreement with MAAC that those existing sites would be ‘grandfathered’ as long as a list of them was provided. We have used the terms “apparently” and “it seems” because, although we are now finding out that such an agreement was in place, none of us – including the Board of Directors, past or present – has ever actually seen that agreement or what it entails. This is a crucial piece of information because it has a direct bearing on everything that has transpired in this sorry affair. Without having seen the agreement, the zone directors at the time were informed that all sites within their various jurisdictions, that were in controlled airspace prior to June 2019, would be ‘grandfathered’ by NavCan – meaning that no further action would be required on their part.
So let us look at the evidence. The accused in this matter produced direct documentary evidence that two of the four sites in question were clearly sanctioned prior to the 2019 cut-off date – in one case around 20 years before that cut-off date – and that both had been in use, and were known by MAAC to have been in use, continuously since. The remaining two sites were less clear, but still there was evidence that MAAC was aware that these fields were in use – and that MAAC had actually been instrumental in obtaining a certificate of insurance for the owner of the properties involved (the city in which they are located) two years prior to the introduction of Part IX. The only reason that the prior use and approval is not completely clear is that, although the requesting letter describes all five fields in that city’s jurisdiction (two of which have not been challenged, but the other three have) the insurance certificate does not specify the fields by name.
So – what was the damning evidence that had convinced the Board that this person should have his membership suspended for the rest of 2023 – and after that for it only to be renewed if he accepted some yet-to-be-determined restrictions on his participation in MAAC? The evidence was boxes having been checked on the MAAC computer system! Here is what was provided to the accused as evidence:-
| Club ID | Club Name | Zone | Airfield Name | Approval Date |
| 862 | CSLRC | J | KOVAC PARK | 2020-06-11 |
| 862 | CSLRC | J | SINGERMAN PARK | 2021-04-25 |
| 862 | CSLRC | J | TRUDEAU DIAMOND #3 | 2020-01-10 |
There were boxes on the MAAC data system, that it is claimed only zone directors were allowed access to, in which the ZD can change the status of a field approval from N to Y. The system then captures the date upon which that change is made in another file – as shown above.
There are many ways in which something like this can occur on a computer system. The approval status is reversible – a Y can be changed to a N. This can happen accidentally. An authorized person can inadvertently switch the box incorrectly, discover that they have made a mistake and switch it back again. We have done that (more than once – sometimes more than once in the same document). We’re sure you have too. On what date will the computer show that the status was changed, if it records it at all? The date on which the last change was made, of course. Similarly, a person can find that, although they filled in most of the required information in an on-line form, they inadvertently missed something (perhaps to check the ‘Y’ box) – so the next time they go to that form, and see their mistake, they rectify it. The record will show that they made the change on that date – even though, perhaps, they should have done so on a much earlier date and the use of the field is perfectly legitimate.
We do not know what happened here, but the material produced above (which is the only thing passed on to the accused as evidence) is not evidence that he did anything wrong. It is most certainly not evidence of when any of those fields were actually first approved for use – or whether they were in use (or not), and known to be so (or not), prior to June 2019. It is quite possible that one or more of these fields did not even appear on the MAAC website prior to 2019 – that is not evidence that they were not in use, that they were not approved, or that they should not have been considered eligible to be ‘grandfathered’. It could be an indication that some records were not as fully entered as they could have been – but prior to 2019 there really wasn’t much compulsion to be rigorous – especially about fields that were considered to be for ‘private’ use. A review of other fields in MAAC’s records show similar dates for having been approved – but these are fields which have been in sanctioned use for decades. The MAAC record is completely ineffective in determining when and how fields have been approved for use. Here is an example,taken from MAAC records on March 15th, 2023:-
From this record it can be seen that this club’s Walker Field was approved on December 14, 2020 and their Float Fly venue was approved on June 28, 2021 – both well after the June 2019 introduction of the Exemption from Part IX of CARs. In fact, both of those sites were initially approved years before the 2019 cut-off date, one of them about 15 years before. The dates appearing on this record are simply the last time a change was made – in one case the change being that the club’s MAAC membership was renewed.
Complaint #2. This complaint was that, as an experienced director, the accused demonstrated an apparent lack of due diligence in the approval process. Of course, the first response to this complaint should be – “As an experienced Director, why was he not afforded the due process as described in the Policy Manual section 6.4 – Discipline of Directors?” We will come to that a little later. The question for us here is “What evidence was produced to support the contention that the accused lacked due diligence in his actions?” The answer is – None!
Complaint #3. This complaint is that the approval of these sites has led directly to MAAC suspending all outdoor flying activity, as well as NAV CANADA’s withdrawal of the status quo agreement, jeopardizing the future of any MAAC activities in controlled airspace. This is by far the most serious of the four complaints leveled, in terms of its effect upon the reputation of the accused. The first thing to be noted is that it does not actually address any purported wrongdoing – it only talks about possible consequences. There is a lot to be discussed about this particular allegation, particularly with regard to the cause of the events described, but in this section we are considering the evidence. What evidence was produced that the accused’s actions caused the highly undesirable consequences noted? Again, the answer is – None!
Complaint #4. This complaint is that in three of the four cases cited there was a direct personal gain because the accused was a member and chief instructor for the club in question. In this instance the evidence used appears to be within the complaint itself. No other evidence was presented to the accused. The complaint says that “because he was a member and chief instructor for the club” there was necessarily a “direct personal gain”. That is not really evidence either. There would only have been some direct personal gain if, in fact, the fields had not been in use until such time as he took the action that he is accused of having taken. That was not the case – the fields were in use, members of the club were using those fields, and they all, including the zone director, believed that they were doing so within the requirements of the Exemption – that these fields were approved. In those circumstances what “direct personal gain” could come from any action of the accused? He, and his club members, genuinely and with reasonable cause, believed that their fields were all ‘grandfathered’ under the terms of the ‘status quo’ agreement and the Exemption.
What Actually Created the Negative Consequences?
In these accusations much has been made of the negative consequences that the accused is said to have caused by his alleged actions. Leaving aside the issue of whether he actually did wrongfully sanction some flying fields in his zone (but without acknowledging that there is any truth to that allegation), let us look at the claimed negative consequences and what actually created them.
The first of these claimed consequences is that the accused’s actions led directly to MAAC’s suspension of all outdoor flying activity. That is quite clearly a false claim – and one that is seriously damaging to the accused, while deflecting blame from the real culprits. It is the current Board of Directors of MAAC who, entirely of their own volition, and with no other visible imperative, made the unilateral decision that, rather than do what was actually required in the circumstances, they would ban all outdoor flying everywhere in Canada. That decision cannot be laid at the feet of the accused in this matter. The Board made its own decision, it had other options available to it, and it chose unwisely. Trying to deflect the blame for that onto another, and denying him due process to defend himself against such allegations, is unacceptable for the Board of a recreational association. The decision to introduce the ban was made, as far as we can tell, before the ‘status quo’ agreement had been withdrawn. The secrecy around the interactions with NavCan and Transport Canada, meeting minutes not even being available to the Board never mind the membership, make it impossible to be sure when anything actually occurred.
The second claimed consequence of the accused’s action is that it led to the withdrawal of the ‘status quo’ agreement. It is clear that information provided to NavCan led them to withdraw the ‘status quo’ agreement – it seems doubtful that anyone would dispute that. It is also clear, however, that the consequences of that were limited to the necessity for all sites that were in controlled airspace, whether they could be proven to have been sanctioned prior to June 2019 or not, to cease operation of RPAS. There was no necessary consequence to any other RPAS activity in Canada – and certainly not to any non-RPAS activity anywhere in Canada. We will get back to the matter of the information provided to NavCan a little later.
NavCan responded to information that they were given. The real issue here is – what information were they given, by whom, when, and why?
To reveal what really happened we first have to go back to 2019 and the actions around the Exemption granted to MAAC from the then-new Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. As part of that process, and we don’t know exactly when – all such information has been maintained as secret, even from the Board – NavCan required that a list of existing MAAC-sanctioned flying sites in controlled airspace be provided to them. This was probably a part of the process enabling NavCan to issue an agreement allowing fields that were already in existence prior to the introduction of Part IX to continue in operation with no further action required by MAAC – the so-called ‘status quo’ agreement. Again, we don’t know when this actually occurred, it is a secret, but it is not unreasonable to assume that it was sometime in 2019 or perhaps 2020. We don’t actually know what is in that agreement either – nobody has ever been allowed to read it – except one zone director and some appointed other members.
It seems that a list was created and provided to NavCan, and that it was said to be a complete list of all pre-existing flying sites in controlled airspace in Canada, in satisfaction of the ‘status quo’ agreement. That list was also a secret document. Zone Directors were not asked to contribute to it, club presidents were not asked to contribute to it, and nobody was allowed to see it – except perhaps for some of the appointed (but non-elected) members of the two Advisory Groups involved – Safety and Transport Canada. The Zone Directors (which comprise the Board) were told that the list had been provided to NavCan and that therefore the existing sites in their zones, that were in controlled airspace, did not have to be processed according to the requirements of the Exemption.
It should go without saying that – had that list been made available to all of the zone directors, and others in the local areas having knowledge of flight activities – most, if not all, omissions from the list would have been found and corrected. That did not happen – excessive, and unnecessary, secrecy took precedence over transparency and accuracy. An incomplete list of sites that should be ‘grandfathered’ in the ‘status quo’ agreement was provided to NavCan, and that is a reflection of the lack of due diligence on the part of the creator of that list. Let us be clear at this point – the sites that are in dispute here are not by any means the only ones that were not included in the defective list that was provided to the controlling agency. They are the only ones for which an ex-zone director has had his membership in MAAC suspended – so far.
As we have seen, certain fields were not included in the list of existing approved fields that was provided to NavCan. At some point after the Exemption came into effect those fields, or at least some of them, had their electronic records changed to the status of “approved”. It has not been established what the circumstances of those changes were – whether this was to rectify a mistake, to record a previous condition that had inadvertently been unrecorded, or for any other reason. However that anomaly in the electronic record came about, it remained in the record for over two years. Nobody, apparently, checked the record to see if there were any such ‘errors’. No system had been put in place to ‘flag’ any entry made after June 2019 so that it could be verified.
In December 2022 it was discovered that there were fields whose records showed that their approval had been recorded after the cut-off date of June 2019, fields which might not have been approved prior to that date. What action was then taken? The zone director who was suspected to have created the situation was not contacted in order to determine the circumstances. The president of the club that used the fields was not contacted, in order to determine the history of the field use. No investigation whatsoever appears to have been done – certainly no results of any such enquiry were brought to light. Instead, without further ado, NavCan were told that four fields in controlled airspace were sanctioned by a MAAC official in contravention of the ‘status quo’ agreement. Given such information it is highly predictable what the controlling agency’s reaction would be – and that is exactly what happened – the agreement was withdrawn. That is the action that caused the loss of the ‘status quo’ agreement – that combined with the fact that MAAC had provided an improperly compiled ‘grandfather’ list in the first place. A full and competently conducted investigation of the actual status of those fields – and of the zone director’s, and the club’s, reasonable belief that the fields were (or should have been) ‘grandfathered’ would have led to a completely different outcome.
It is probably too late now for remedial action to be effective. The reason for the loss of the ‘status quo’ agreement was never a valid one, but NavCan had no way of knowing that. The fact that MAAC has demonstrated, through this debacle, that it is quite incompetent to conduct itself properly in administration of such affairs would almost certainly result in refusal to reinstate the previous situation unless there were demonstrable systems put in place to prevent such an occurrence in the future.
Why Did This Happen?
We are left to ponder why did such a thing ever happen? There are multiple reasons, much blame to go around.
As we have already demonstrated, the Board and its representatives have made many mistakes throughout this whole process since the introduction of Part IX in 2019. Here we are, close to four years after that legislation was introduced, and we still don’t have a proper system of recording field status. The Board must take overall responsibility for that, of course, but they put two Advisory Groups in charge of all Exemption matters, at the urging of one director, a director who is the only Board member on either of those AGs. The Board then failed in their due diligence to ensure that the work of those AGs was carried out properly. No documentation of any of those AGs’ work was ever received – no meeting minutes, no documentation of agreements. There was little to no collaboration with any of the experts available on the Special Interest Committees in order to learn of the specific factors involved in any of the many specialized categories that the work would affect. This was a little group, acting among us with complete immunity, consisting of people who were appointed to their positions with no particular credentials and absolutely no accountability to the membership.
The argument has frequently been forwarded, within the Board and elsewhere, that the Board member who was on both of those committees was the most qualified person in MAAC to be there, and to be the lead person in the discussions with NavCan and Transport Canada, because he used to work for NavCan. That person has, as recently as this year, claimed that he still works for NavCan, and that he works for RPAS Wilco as a computer coder – those claims have not been able to be verified. If they were true they would represent a serious conflict of interest in both instances. Is being an ex-employee, of the organization that MAAC is negotiating with, actually any sort of credential for representing MAAC in those negotiations? By any sensible measure it is actually a severe impediment. The person in that situation might very well have knowledge of airspace control – but that is not what MAAC needs in those negotiations. NavCan and Transport Canada bring not only a knowledge of, but a responsibility to ensure, proper airspace control and the safety of full-size aircraft. It is the responsibility of the MAAC representative to try to get the best agreement possible for MAAC’s members, considering only the interests of those members. Sometimes that would necessarily entail arguing against positions which – had he been sitting on the other side of the table as a NavCan employee – he might have argued in favour of. The best results come from negotiations when each side has a clear, unambivalent, interest in the outcome.
There is another, far more troubling, factor in all of this. The injustice that has been wrought here upon one individual, in an effort to deflect the blame from those with whom it truly lies, is not an isolated incident – it is part of a pattern of such damaging behaviour.
One single zone director, in only 30 months on the Board, has heaped abuse on at least five of his fellow directors, has hurled similar insults on members of MAAC who had the temerity to differ with him, and has brought charges of wrongdoing against two of his fellow directors. It is quite notable that his first attempt at convicting a fellow Board member of wrongdoing failed. In that instance the procedure contained in the Policy manual was utilized – section 6.4 – a procedure that allows for the presentation of evidence, an investigation and opportunity for full representation and argument. The action failed to reach the required level of consensus and the accused was not found guilty. The director whose motion to convict a colleague had failed, then blamed the Chairman of the Constitution Committee for the outcome. The target of his abuse became that person. That is why, in this second such action, aimed at a different director, he chose the form of an inquisition. Of course, in this instance, most of the other directors had an interest in railroading the former director – it was a way to deflect the blame from themselves – for allowing their flawed process over compliance with the Exemption and the related ‘status quo’ agreement to get MAAC into this position in the first place. The accuser had revenge as one of his motives – the accused was one of the directors who had formerly disagreed with him – as has been the case with all of those on whom he has heaped derision, abuse, and insults. He also had the motive of self-preservation – if it became public knowledge that it was his incompetence and neglect that had caused our current difficulties he might lose the position of ultimate power that he has achieved within MAAC. The whole Board (with one notable exception) found themselves in a position where they must sacrifice one lamb in order to save, not the flock, but their own skins – and that is exactly what they did. Shame on them.
It is worth noting that, in the previous ~75 years of its history there has not been one previous instance of a disciplinary action being taken against a Director. In the past 30 months there have been two – both brought by the same man – a man who was angry that he wasn’t agreed with. That isn’t to say that there have never been differences. In the past those differences have been able to be resolved without resort to the sort of behaviour that has been exhibited by this one director. We do not say that this is entirely his fault, however. There are others who have paved the way, others who have encouraged, others who have turned a blind eye – and they have set up a situation in which we now have a dysfunctional Board. It was beginning to become dysfunctional before this particular director was elected, but it has grown steadily worse and is now out of control.
What is Next?
We are in a bad situation in MAAC, of that there can be no doubt, but there is danger of things becoming even worse. The same people who have overseen the current disaster have been given ‘carte blanche’ to re-write all of the policies and procedures of MAAC. Not this Board, which would be bad enough in itself, but no – the small group of people in the SAG and the TCAG (one elected director and a handful of appointees) have been handed the task of creating MAAC 2.0! This is a formula for even greater disasters to come.
MAAC members need to take back control of their association. We are told that the Exemption is now history. RPAS fliers now need to comply with Part IX of CARs. That is not likely to change any time soon. The president has himself said that it is not likely that flying will resume in 2023 on any of the fields that are in controlled airspace. Given that situation there is no reason to rush to create a new MAAC. This ill-conceived notion should be stopped immediately. Let us recognize that this only applies to RPAS fliers – that the flying of non-RPAS aircraft is not affected in any way. With all of the much-trumpeted work going on to re-qualify flying fields, MAAC has still not taken the step that it could have done at any time since this debacle began – it could have recognized that none of this controversy affects non-RPAS flying in any way. Transport Canada has made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in restricting the operation of aircraft that do not fall into the category of RPAS – MAAC should acknowledge its extreme overreach in banning the flying of those aircraft and immediately lift the ban. Why do they not do this? The answer is very clear – the person who created this crisis has been lobbying hard for Transport Canada to extend the RPAS definition to include all aircraft of any weight – all the way down to zero! That is in direct opposition to what is happening in other places around the world -notably in the USA – where the proposals are to increase the minimum weight to at least 1 kg! A typical seagull weighs at least 1 kg, some of them much more. A Canada Goose typically weighs 5 kg! Why would model aircraft weighing ¼ kg be considered a significant safety risk? Not only that, he wants MAAC (and maybe Transport Canada) to include Free Flight and Control Line aircraft within that category as well. Very fortunately for us, Transport Canada has so far resisted that call – we cannot say the same for MAAC. His reasoning is that any incident sparked by model aircraft that are not covered by the definition of RPAS will nevertheless affect MAAC’s standing with Transport Canada – despite the written evidence, from Transport Canada that this is not the case. This is not in the best interests of MAAC or its members, it is time to stop this madness, this power grab within our ranks.
Special General Zone Meetings should be called, with the purpose of determining what type of MAAC the members want. The Special Interest Committees should be consulted about what is needed for them to continue to enjoy their aspect of the whole aeromodelling diaspora. We have time, let us use it wisely. Let us not rush headlong into another ill-conceived and poorly executed set of By-Laws and Policies – created by the folks who brought us this disaster – that will only set us even further back.