MAAC is embarked upon a course to purge its membership of all dissent.  Anybody who opposes the Board’s chosen direction is being targeted for removal from the association, using a technique that the Spanish Inquisition would have been proud to own.

In recent months, two long-term, accomplished, well-respected members of MAAC, men who have served the association well, over many decades, and who both have served as Zone Directors, have been suspended from MAAC membership.  These two are Roly Worsfold – previously from zone C (BC Interior/Yukon) and Steve Woloz – previously from zone J (St. Lawrence).  There have been other members treated similarly but, because the process is held in secret, we are not aware of the details of their “crimes against MAAC”.  In a strange reversal of policy the removal of Roly Worsfold has been announced to the whole of the membership of zone C.

In this article you will find:-

• A listing of the ‘allegations’ used against Roly Worsfold in order to remove him from the association.  (Roly’s example is similar to others that have been occurring in the first half of 2023 but is used, with the victim’s permission, to illustrate what is going on in the name of MAAC.)
• A review of the rebuttal of each of the ‘allegations’ that was provided to the Board, showing that there were no grounds whatsoever for even suggesting that Roly Worsfold should be suspended or expelled from membership.
• The iniquitous Clause 12 – reprinted in full.
• An explanation of why such a clause has no place in the By-Laws of a recreational association in a non-dictatorial society such as Canada.
• Discussion of the fact that an alternative, more judiciously fair, process is outlined in the MAAC Policy Manual and why it isn’t being used.
• Discussion of the fact that the MAAC representative to Transport Canada threatened to advise TC that the Exemption should be withdrawn when an earlier attempt against Roly Worsfold failed.
  
  

Background.

Roland Worsfold, a very long-term member of MAAC, one who has served the association well, in a multitude of roles, over many decades, and who is highly respected among his peers, has had his membership in MAAC suspended from July 2023 until January of 2025.  He then has to apply to the Board for permission to reinstate his membership and, if the Board grants that permission, he will still not be allowed to hold any office within MAAC (or the independent clubs that are affiliated to MAAC) for a further two years.  As MAAC has consistently held that the clubs are not legally any part of the MAAC structure it seems to be a very questionable extension of its power for MAAC to believe that it can dictate which members can be elected to office in an independent organization.  “Having one’s cake and eating it too” comes to mind.  MAAC wants to take control, but it doesn’t want to take responsibility.

This is not the first such suspension – in 2023 there have been a number of similar examples.  The rate of purging of MAAC’s membership is completely without precedent.  We have never, in the 74-year history of the organization, witnessed such a witch hunt before.

Review of the Allegations.

A number of allegations were made against Roly in the document informing him of the Board’s decision to suspend his membership.  They are listed here exactly as presented in the letter informing him of his suspension – with the exception that here the allegations are numbered whereas in the original they were simply ‘bulleted’.  That has been done so as to readily identify each allegation in the section that follows – which describes the rebuttal that was provided by Roly for each separate allegation.

1. In communications you have sent to the Board and in other communications the Board has obtained, you have, among many other things: On June 3, 2019, sanctioned flight operations at Leer field of the FSJ RC Club in controlled airspace without obtaining permission from the provider, contrary to exemption condition #3. June 3, 2019, was two days after the exemption came into effect, and the Board of the time (of which you were a member) had received adequate information for you to have avoided this error.
   
   
2. On March 19, 2023, you sent a “report” to the Board in defence of a recently-disciplined former Zone Director, in which you discussed several confidential matters. Aside from the misinformation presented in that report, you copied Scott Crosby, an Assistant Zone Director in Zone A, on your email and report.  As a Zone Director, you were aware of MAAC’s confidentiality policy, and to the extent that you disclosed matters that had come before the Board in closed session during your terms on the Board, you have breached that policy.
   
   
3. On April 15, 2023, accused MAAC of “slow administration of policies and procedures” and said that “all the regulations … is coming from MAAC, not from Transport Canada or Nav Can”. The facts, communicated in eblasts to members (which you would have received), are that we are proceeding deliberately and cautiously to reopen flying fields to ensure compliance with Transport Canada and NAV CANADA and that the new safety documents we have developed are to make members aware of their obligations under Part IX of the Canadian Aviation Regulations.
   
   
4. On April 21, 2023, stated that “the only controlling agency to fly from a full-scale airport in controlled or uncontrolled airspace is the airport operation is the owners of the airport through their assigned airport operator.” This was not true under the former exemption and is not true now under CAR Part IX (901.14 states that, subject to 901.71, no one may operate an RPAS in controlled airspace; 901.71 stipulates that, if a pilot obtains approval from the provider of air traffic services). This has been explained to you.
   
   
5. Between May 9, 2023, and June 1, 2023, applied for an SFOC from Transport Canada for the BC Classic Scale Event despite several communications asking members not to contact either Transport Canada or NAV CANADA.
   
   
6. On June 1, 2023, said, “I don’t think I’m going to tell [MAAC] that we have applied for a T.C. SFOC unless it gets approved. This behaviour presents MAAC to Transport Canada and NAV CANADA as an organization that is potentially not a trustworthy aviation partner, despite the hard work the organization has put in to reassure them on this point.

Review of the Rebuttals.

Roly was allowed to submit a written rebuttal to these allegations – in an effort to change the decision that had already been made by the Board prior to him being informed of it.  He was not allowed to be present at, or refute, any of the arguments made by his accuser at any hearings into the matter.  Roly submitted a detailed rebuttal – covering ten pages.  In light of the extensive detail in those ten pages we will provide a shortened summary here containing the essence of the response to each allegation.

1. This allegation is known by the Board to be false.  No such wrongful sanctioning occurred.  The flying site in question had been in use for many years prior to June 2019, when the restriction on registering new sites was brought into force.  The fault here is two-fold – neither of which occurred as a result of anything done by Roly.  The primary fault is that MAAC’s Board was well aware that the data management system in place at the time that the new regulations came into force did not carry a record of when any flying site was initially ‘sanctioned’ – the date being ‘updated’ each time that the club in question renewed its MAAC membership.  The secondary (but equally important) fault was that MAAC appointed a small group of people to establish which flying sites were in existence in controlled airspace at the date of adoption of the Exemption.  The purpose of this was to inform NavCanada of those sites – which NavCan had agreed could continue operations without restriction.  Those appointees conducted their search in secret and were unaware of many of the features of MAAC’s data system.  As a result, certain flying sites were omitted from the list and others were mistakenly thought to have been sanctioned at a much later date than was the reality.  Had the membership (especially the committee chairmen and the club presidents) been asked to submit data concerning the fields known to have been in use, these mistakes could have easily been avoided.  As with so many things at MAAC in recent years, this administration felt that it was more important to conduct this work in complete secrecy than to involve the membership and get the facts correct.
   
   These faults, which directly resulted in the revocation of MAAC’s Exemption, have been admitted by the President, Mike Anderson, in his column in the March/April 2023 issue of Model Aviation Canada.  Despite this, two ex-Zone Directors have now been suspended from MAAC membership – both for misdeeds that they quite clearly did not commit.  It is likely that other members have been treated similarly – the veil of secrecy prevents us from knowing that.
   
   There is an interesting remark at the end of this first allegation that “the Board of the time (of which you were a member) had received adequate information for you to have avoided this error”.  In his column referred to above, written before this suspension was announced, Mike Anderson wrote “…at the time, there were no clear criteria and requirements for sanctioning sites and events, and the association didn’t provide much oversight or training to ensure that the thirteen directors applied the requirements uniformly.”  So – besides the fact that no error was actually perpetrated by the zone director (the error was committed by the persons appointed by the Board to deal with NavCanada) – if there had been an error it would have been because of communications that were admitted to be inadequate.
   
   One of the excuses that have been advanced for the Board’s inaction on ensuring that its database provided accurate information is that, 8 months after the Exemption was put in place, Covid arrived in North America.  Rather than excusing the administration’s inaction surely this just emphasizes their fault.  What better time could there have been for them to ensure that their systems matched the requirements of the new regime than a time when no-one was able to fly because of the government restrictions on outdoor gatherings.  MAAC’s appointees to the negotiations with Transport Canada and NavCanada, which included the current VP, were certainly aware of what was coming well before June 2019.  Apparently, they felt it best to keep the information secret rather than inform anyone of what would be required and they did nothing to ensure that MAAC’s database was adequate for the new demands upon it.
   
   This allegation against Roly is clearly false and without any merit – but it serves to deflect attention away from where the fault actually lies – with the people who have made the allegation in the first place, and have then sat in judgment on him.
   
   
2. This allegation deals primarily with an alleged breach of confidentiality.  The confidentiality in question concerns the revelation of matters that came up at the hearing when another former zone director – Steve Woloz – was suspended.  {NB.  That suspension was based upon false claims, almost exactly parallel to those of allegation #1 here, of having wrongly sanctioned one or more flying sites in controlled airspace.}  The alleged breach came in the form of an email to the Board of Directors (all of whom were present at the meeting in question) plus an Assistant Zone Director.  It could be argued that the AZD was not privy to the initial meeting and that thus, this one person had no right to know.  That argument is confounded, however.  The meeting referred to was held in camera in direct opposition to Steve’s expressed wish.  As Steve was the only person who had any right to an expectation of privacy, and he had expressly not only waived that right but requested that the meeting be held in public, the Board had no right to hold the meeting in camera – and certainly could not have any expectation of privacy in those circumstances.  In fact, Steve himself made the matter public as widely as he was able to, immediately after the meeting.  There can be no breach of confidentiality in discussing a matter that has already been made public beforehand.
   
   It should be noted here that Roly also asked that any hearing on his suspension be held in public.  The Board denied that request too.  In a situation such as this the Board does not have the right to declare a meeting (or part of one) to be in camera.  The purpose of a meeting being in camera, in these circumstances, is to protect the privacy of the accused.  If the accused not only waives that right, but specifically requests a public hearing, the Board does not have the right to deny that.  A meeting may not be declared to be in camera simply to allow the Board to hide its actions from the membership.  If the Board wishes to say or do something, it must be prepared to do so in the full view of its membership.  Secrecy is a tool only to be used rarely – and only in very specific circumstances in order to protect an individual’s right to privacy, or to protect delicate commercial negotiations.
   
   This allegation is clearly both frivolous and false.  Once again, the purpose of bringing the allegation is to prevent the membership from knowing who was really at fault.
   
   
3. In the two parts of this allegation Mr. Worsfold is accused of two “crimes”.  In the first, his crime is to have written that MAAC is “slow” and in the second he is said to have written that the rules that MAAC members have been subjected to since the Exemption was revoked come from MAAC not from NavCan or Transport Canada.  Let us take these two matters separately.
   
   To say that MAAC is “slow” can hardly be considered to be a crime.  Firstly, it is a matter of opinion – there is no objective standard for what is slow and what is not.  The second point is far more compelling, however.  In their indictment of Roly the Board describes their own actions as “…proceeding deliberately and cautiously…”  A synonym for ‘deliberately’ is ‘unhurried’ and one for ‘cautiously’ is ‘tentatively’.  It is difficult to find a real distinction between the way in which Roly described MAAC’s actions and the way in which they see it themselves.  Yet this is cited as some sort of “crime” according to how this Board sees it!  It is worth further noting the context in which this statement concerning slowness was made.  The accused reported to his Zone Director (a member of the Board) that an event had been canceled “due to MAAC’s slow administration of policies and procedure.”  Roland Worsfold did not make the decision, or establish the reason, he simply reported the event organizers’ actions and the reasons for them – yet he was accused of the dastardly crime of calling MAAC “slow”.
   
   In the second of these statements that have been objected to, the complaint is that Roly has remarked that the regulations (he was talking of MAAC’s new rules) came from MAAC and not from Transport Canada or NavCan.  But Roly’s statement is entirely true!
   Firstly, there was a complete ban on all flying anywhere.  That was not required by the government agencies – it was entirely a MAAC decision.
   That ban covered all aspects of outdoor flying – including Free Flight and Control Line – that was not required by the governing agencies.  Even when the Exemption was in place it was made clear by Transport Canada that only RPAS were to be regulated – even in controlled airspace.  It was also made clear by Transport Canada, in writing, that any incident involving a non-RPAS model aircraft would have absolutely no effect whatsoever upon their rules governing RPAS or upon the Exemption.  This was stated in response to a direct question to Transport Canada by Roy E. Smith, a member in zone G, and MAAC’s Board were made aware of that.  This was entirely a MAAC decision.
   RPAS flying in uncontrolled airspace was banned – that was not required by the loss of the Exemption.  The only thing that loss of the Exemption caused was that all RPAS flying had to be under the auspices of Part IX of CARs and flying in controlled airspace was only allowed with a Special Flying Operations Certificate (SFOC) issued by Transport Canada.  The decision to ban flying in uncontrolled airspace, even with the legally-required pilot certificate, was entirely a MAAC decision.
   
   This two-part allegation is faintly ludicrous.  Both things complained of, that were said by Roly, are demonstrably true – is the truth to be considered a crime simply because it is inconvenient to the Board?  This allegation contains not even a hint of any actual wrongdoing.
   
   
4. This is a highly contentious allegation.  In essence, Roly is said to have communicated incorrect information on the function of airport operating authorities to a zone director, an assistant zone director, and the person responsible for RPAS operations at a full-size airfield in uncontrolled airspace.  He is accused of having done this at a time when he was a rank-and-file member of the association, not as an official voice of the association.
   
   In the allegation sent to Roly, and copied in its entirety at the beginning of this article, MAAC’s president claims that section 901.71 “stipulates that, if a pilot obtains approval from the provider of air traffic services”.  It isn’t clear what this sentence means but it can be conjectured that the intent is to convey that a pilot can fly in controlled airspace if he obtains that approval.  It is further stated that Roly has had this ‘fact’ explained to him by MAAC.  This is not actually an accurate quotation from Part IX.  Here is what the quoted section actually says:-
   
   901.71 (1) No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace under this Division unless the following information is provided to the provider of air traffic services in the area of operation before a proposed operation and an authorization has been issued by that provider:
   {This is followed by a list of information including name, address, etc.,(not reproduced here) that must be produced for the provider of air traffic services.}
   
   Nowhere does the actual section of Part IX say that the information must be provided directly by the pilot – as interpreted by MAAC’s president.  (Neither does it say that it must be provided by MAAC!  It doesn’t even say that it can be provided by MAAC!)    It would seem perfectly logical that, in the case of a proposal to fly at a full-scale airport in controlled or uncontrolled airspace, the first place to start would be with the operator of the airport.  After all – if they refuse to co-operate there is no point in taking the matter further.  We do not believe that NavCanada has the power to force an airport operator to accept operations that it has no wish to host, so there is no point in approaching NavCan first.  If the airport operator agrees to the proposed operations, then it also seems logical that they would approach the provider of air traffic control services to obtain any necessary approvals – they must be in frequent contact with the appropriate people.
   
   Regardless of whether an application for approval of an operation at an airport can (or should) be made by the airport operator or not – Roly had been informed that this was the case, and that, in fact, this was the normal procedure.  He informed a small group of people, including a zone director, of what he had learned.  How can it be reasonably construed that passing on information that one has received is detrimental to MAAC?  Is every member of MAAC to be afraid to pass on information that they have learned, and believe to be true, in case the Board thinks it is incorrect and suspends them?
   
   So, what is the situation?  A publication by Transport Canada actually makes that quite clear.  Transport Canada published TP14371E Transport Canada Aeronautical Information Manual (TC-AIM) on October 7, 2021.  That manual contains over 400 pages.  It has a sub-section, known as TC-AIM-RPA, that pertains specifically to Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which is 30 pages.  We will produce an article discussing the contents of that publication in more detail in the near future – its importance deserves detailed consideration.  When that becomes available a link will be added to the end of this article, enabling the reader to go directly to that page.  For now, however, we will simply discuss a part of it here.
   
   3.4.5 Operations at or in the Vicinity of an Airport or Heliport—Established Procedure
   Advanced RPA pilots are required by CAR 901.73 to conduct their operations in accordance with the established procedure. The official TC established procedure is stated below and should be followed when the pilot is operating an RPA in an advanced environment at or in the vicinity of an uncontrolled airport, heliport, or water airport. Please also refer to the Drone Site Selection Tool or NAV CANADA’s drone flight planning tool. RPA pilots must make every reasonable attempt to contact the airport, heliport, or water airport operator to fly within the zones indicated by orange-shaded shapes on the Drone Site Selection Tool or NAV CANADA’s drone flight planning tool. If unable to establish communications with air traffic through the airport operator, the advanced RPA pilot should establish communications with and avoid other aircraft using standard radio and visual procedures.
   
   There is much more to this document – and even to this section of the document – but It is quite clear that Transport Canada expects that the operator of an RPAS shall contact the airport operator when operating “at or in the vicinity of an airport”.
   
   It will be noted that this excerpt refers to a pair of tools that Transport Canada deems to be suitable for determining the extent of airspace containing limits on RPAS operation.  We will discuss that more in the separate article referred to above.
   
   This allegation is based primarily on MAAC’s administration having an erroneous interpretation of what the Canadian Aviation Regulations actually say.  MAAC’s administration is also, apparently, ignorant of Transport Canada’s position on the matter of the responsibilities of airport operators and an RPAS pilot’s responsibility to contact them.  Allegation #4 is also based on the premiss that only the person anointed by MAAC has knowledge of the rules and regulations governing flight operations – a very dangerous premiss.  Once again, Roly did absolutely nothing wrong, but has been persecuted for trying to be helpful.  This allegation is completely unfounded.
   
   
5. The allegation here is that Roly applied for a SFOC from Transport Canada in order to facilitate the holding of an RPAS event.  There is no question that he did so – the question is “What is the crime?”.  The clue to the perceived crime seems to be in the second half of the sentence containing the complaint “…despite several communications asking members not to contact either Transport Canada or NavCanada.” 
   
   While it may be permissible for MAAC to ASK its members not to contact Transport Canada, it most certainly would be a violation of a member’s rights as a citizen of Canada to insist that they MAY NOT contact a Canadian Government agency and to make that a condition of continuing membership.  Using this as a reason to support the suspension of a person’s membership is clearly in violation of not only that person’s civil rights, but the rights of all members.  This is clearly a pressure tactic to discourage other members from contacting an agency of their government.  Even the request for members not to contact either of the agencies involved in the control of airspace within Canada is a highly questionable practice – it might not violate any actual laws, but it asks people to desist from exercising their citizenship rights.  Given the fact that the purpose of contacting either of those agencies could be (and, on occasion, has been) to check whether information being provided by MAAC is factual, the practice of discouraging such contact is a highly suspect one.  The membership should keep in mind that such contacts, in the recent past, have uncovered that the information distributed by MAAC has not always been correct.
   
   Since MAAC’s Exemption from Part IX of CARs was revoked, any flying of RPAS has to be under the auspices of Part IX of CARs.  {It should be noted, again, that this only applies to RPAS – defined by Transport Canada as being remotely controlled (RC) aircraft weighing more than 250g and less than 35kg (or 25kg – there is some confusion over that).  It is MAAC that has extended this definition to include RC aircraft under 250g, and those that are not RC at all.}
   
   Under Part IX of CARs anyone who wishes to fly an RPAS must first obtain a pilot certificate from Transport Canada.  No provision is made for anyone other than the proposed pilot to make that application.  The holder of that certificate may then legally fly in uncontrolled airspace that is beyond 3 nm from the centre of an airfield.  Any other restriction placed on MAAC members is not a Transport Canada restriction it is imposed by MAAC unilaterally (see allegation #3).  If, on the other hand, a person wishes to fly RPAS in controlled airspace they must first obtain an advanced pilot certificate from Transport Canada and they must also apply to the Minister (Transport Canada) for a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC).  If a person wishes to fly RPAS at a Special Aviation Event they also must obtain a SFOC from Transport Canada.
   
   Nowhere in any of the Part IX documentation is MAAC, or any other third party, mentioned.  Pilot certificates and SFOCs are issued by Transport Canada and application must be made to Transport Canada by those wishing to fly in those circumstances.  Section 903.02 of Part IX opens by stating:-
   
   903.02 A person who proposes to operate a remotely piloted aircraft system for any operation set out in section 903.01 shall apply to the Minister for a Special Flight Operations Certificate — RPAS with regard to that operation by submitting the following information to the Minister at least 30 working days before the date of the proposed operation:
   {This is followed by a list of information (not reproduced here) that must be produced for the Minister.}
   
   There is no provision here for a proxy to make the application to the Minister.  It is quite clear – “A person who proposes to operate…” shall make the application.  For MAAC to demand that they must perform this task flies in the face of the regulations.  By making the application that he did, Roly followed the letter of the law exactly.
   
   On July 14^th, 2023, the president of MAAC announced that a SFOC had been issued to MAAC.  This announcement was a little confusing because a SFOC is usually issued for a specific event or operation.  The text of the announcement implied that the permission that had been granted was for MAAC to issue SFOCs for events.  Perhaps that will be clarified in the future.  Whatever its actual meaning, that announcement underlines the fact that, when Roly made an application for a SFOC for an event in BC, in the Spring of 2023, MAAC did not have the authority to do so and the only available recourse was for individuals or clubs to make the application on their own behalf.  That position is further confirmed by the fact that the lead person in charge of “Flight Operations Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)” at Transport Canada had been dealing with Roly as the legitimate person to communicate with on the subject.
   
   Roly not only did nothing wrong – he did what was expected of him, quite correctly.  It is yet to be seen whether Transport Canada, having now, apparently, given MAAC authority to provide SFOCs for events, will refuse to grant SFOCs to members who make application for themselves.
   
   This allegation is completely groundless – there is no “crime”.
   
6. This allegation falls into the same sort of category as allegation #3 – it is faintly ludicrous.  Roly communicated to other people on the organizing committee for an event for which he was applying for a SFOC, saying that he would not inform MAAC of the application unless it was successful.  So, if the application was successful MAAC would be notified, if it wasn’t then they would not be notified – because there wouldn’t be an event, so they had no need to know.  The allegation, however, claims that Roly somehow presented MAAC in a negative light to Transport Canada and NavCanada.
   
   It is very hard to imagine how this statement, made to these people, could possibly be construed as being in any way detrimental to MAAC.  In what way it presented the association to Transport Canada and NavCanada as “potentially not a trustworthy aviation partner” (or in any other light) is hard to fathom.  The communication didn’t even go to those agencies (unless, perhaps, MAAC sent it to them) – and even if it had, it is hard to see how it could have been interpreted as a negative statement.
   
   This allegation provides no indication of any wrongdoing – only an indication that someone in MAAC’s leadership was annoyed and vented that annoyance by adding it to a list of bogus claims against the person they wished to victimize.
   
   

To summarize – out of 6 allegations of wrongdoing levelled against Roly Worsfold, a dedicated member of MAAC who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the association to help it achieve its objectives, there is not one that contains even a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing.  Only one of the allegations cites an infraction of an actual rule, and that instance has already been proven untrue by the written statements of the MAAC president himself – as well as direct evidence showing that the field in question was, in fact, one that was in use prior to the Exemption.  This is nothing but the vindictive persecution of a member of our association.  The reasons for such persecution can only be a matter for conjecture – but they do not really matter – whatever the reason, this behaviour is reprehensible.

The Iniquitous Clause 12.

Let us examine the clause of the MAAC By-Laws that has enabled the Board of this association to so grievously injure some of the association’s members:-

12. Discipline of Members
The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation, by special resolution, for any one or more of the following grounds:

a	violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation;
b	carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion;
c	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.

This clause has absolutely no place in the rules for a recreational (or any other) association in a free and democratic country.  A motion, and a separate recommendation, were brought before the 2022 AGM of MAAC proposing that the clause be extensively revised.  It was noted that, as written, this clause allows any member to be punished by the Board – for absolutely anything that the Board doesn’t like.  It has no provision for the establishment of facts through evidence, no provision for the accused to face his accuser(s), no requirement to produce evidence, no significant definition of what constitutes a “crime”, and no consideration of the possibility of rehabilitation or re-education – only discipline by removal from the association.  That isn’t discipline – that is the medieval “rule by fear” – excommunicate the unbelievers!  A finding of “guilty” is reached before the accused is even heard from, the convicted member then may prepare a written defence but is not allowed to hear or refute any argument against him at the subsequent hearing.  His accuser can, and often does, sit in judgment on him, but the victim is not allowed even to be present, let alone defend himself.  His defence is considered by the same tribunal that has already declared him guilty and there is no further appeal.  It was agreed at the 2022 AGM that the clause was flawed, but the proposed revisions (which included provisions for all of the deficiencies in the current clause), was rejected.  The basis for the rejection was that “an amateur-written By-Law should not be replaced with another amateur-written By-Law”.  The commitment was made that the offending clause would be re-written with the help of legal counsel.

Given the admission of the clause’s flaws at the 2022 AGM it should have been ‘sidelined’ by the Board until a replacement was ready for use.  Not only has the clause not been removed or replaced – in the 12 months since that AGM, it has been used to suspend more members from MAAC than in the whole of the association’s history prior to that point.  Clearly this Board wishes to purge MAAC of anyone who does not see things exactly their way and they have found that this dreadful By-Law is a very useful instrument for them in that quest.

What Alternative Does the Board Have?

In a situation such as this it is very pertinent to enquire whether an alternate path exists.  As it happens, in MAAC’s case there is a far more proper process of discipline described in the Policy Manual under sections 6.3 – Disciplinary Procedures Members and 6.4 – Disciplinary Procedures Board of Directors.  These procedures are far from perfect, but they do include the requirement for evidence, the right to face one’s accuser, and many other features that would be expected in a fair and equitable judicial process.

Why Not Use the Fairer Process?

So, why doesn’t the Board use this fairer process, at least until such time as a competently re-written clause is added to the By-Laws to replace both the iniquitous Clause 12 and the policy manual sections that would then become redundant? 

We can only guess at what the reasons might be, but a review of recent history does provide the basis for some conjecture.  A year or two ago, charges were brought against the same Roland Worsfold, by the current VP of MAAC – then a quite new Zone Director.  The mechanism used in that case was that contained in section 6 of the Policy Manual.  As we have said, that process, while far from perfect, at least contains some elements of a just system.  The provisions of that section were not completely followed (he was refused independent representation even though that is specifically allowed for) but at least most of the procedure was adhered to.  Largely because of following a process that required evidence and full rebuttal, the first attempt at removing Roly from MAAC failed.  The accuser in that case was incensed that he had not been able to remove one of the people that he did not like.  He made threats of going to Transport Canada and complaining that MAAC was incapable of governing itself – and thus should be stripped of its Exemption from Part IX of CARs (which was still in effect at that time, and he was the anointed representative of MAAC to Transport Canada).

That threat was not carried out – cooler heads somehow prevailed.  As time passed, however, the problems with Clause 12 were identified at the AGM of 2022.  Clearly this struck a chord with that zone director (and possibly others) – who then recognized that they had a ready-made mechanism for removing anyone that they wanted to, without the inconvenience of having to prove a substantial wrongdoing.  Rather than working towards ridding MAAC of that shameful clause, it seems that the promise has been dropped, and a program has begun of using Clause 12 to silence or remove all dissent.