From a group of concerned MAAC members, all of long standing.
BACKGROUND
MAAC has been affiliated with the Aero Club of Canada (ACC) since the inception of the organization. The Federation d’Aviation Internationale (FAI) is the international body that oversees all aviation competition matters on a worldwide basis. Their compass includes things such as sailplanes (full size), ballooning, air races, full-size aerobatics, etc., etc. The FAI conducts liaison through only one organization in each country and in Canada’s case that is the ACC – hence MAAC is required to be affiliated with the ACC in order for any of its members to be able to fly in World Championship competition. To complete the picture, there is a sub-committee of the FAI that deals with aeromodelling matters – the CIAM – so it is that committee of the FAI that deals with us, through the Aero Club.
The FAI and the ACC do not involve themselves in the internal matters of any individual country’s, or discipline’s, organization, whether for model flying or any of the other aviation activities that they govern, that is not within their purview. They supervise the operation of world competition in all of the disciplines for which they have jurisdiction. In the case of aeromodelling there are currently 27 official categories (15 RC, 7 FF, 5 CL) and there are 31 provisional categories (15 RC, 13 FF, 3 CL) recognized by and administered by them.
An electronic survey was conducted in March 2020, over a period of one week, soliciting the opinions of the MAAC membership at large on a proposal for changing the Constitution of MAAC. No hard copy version was sent to members having no email address. The proposed change was described as moving the requirement that MAAC be affiliated with the Aero Club of Canada from the Constitution to the Policy Manual. Once that requirement is in the Policy Manual it would be possible for any Board, at any time, to cancel the affiliation, with no further reference to the membership until after the fact. The decision would take effect immediately but it would have to be ratified later by at least a 50% + 1 vote at an AGM. It would be unusual for any Board not to be able to obtain that level of support at an AGM, especially after a decision has already been put into effect. Presumably, however, if that ratification wasn’t forthcoming, the Board would then have to negotiate the reinstatement of the affiliation, which could, in itself, be highly problematic.
As it stands now, to remove the affiliation with the ACC/FAI, a resolution has to be produced, proposing the change, and a vote at the AGM has to be 67% in favour before that resolution can be put into effect. That is much more difficult to achieve, but quite possible, especially if there is a really good reason. A resolution to remove ACC affiliation entirely was, in fact, presented at another AGM (from the same zone that produced this resolution) and it was defeated. We now have the same matter being introduced – but making it a two-stage process instead, first take the requirement out of the constitution and place it elsewhere, then any board can remove it at any time they like – only accountable to the membership, by simple majority, afterwards.
It should be mentioned here that this requirement (affiliation to the ACC) is not only entrenched in MAAC’s Constitution – it also appears, in exactly the same words, in our Letters Patent. The Letters Patent is the document that is filed with the Canadian Government outlining the purpose of the not-for-profit organization and is the basis upon which the registration of the organization was granted in the first place. In order to avoid an act that is enabled in the Policy Manual from contravening the Letters Patent, and thus being illegal, the Letters Patent would also have to be revised. This fact was not disclosed to those members who received the March survey.
The survey process – while perhaps laudable in principle – was fatally flawed because it contained only the arguments for acceptance. A request was made that the leadership rescind the survey or correct the bias contained in it. Some members of the Board supported that, but their voices were overridden. We would like to present here, for your consideration, responses to the arguments presented for adoption of the resolution, and the counter arguments in support of rejecting the resolution. We believe that a fully informed membership has the best hope of reaching constructive decisions – especially over a ‘crossroads’ decision such as this.
THE ARGUMENTS ‘FOR’
We quote here from the email that the membership received, introducing the survey and encouraging members to support the proposed changes –
“In short, moving affiliation references from the Constitution to Policy makes MAAC a more nimble organisation (sic) and provides strength in negotiations and more flexibility to adapt to external influences over time.”
On first reading that really makes the proposal appear to be a wise and reasonable move, encouraging the reader to support it. The reality, however, is rather different from the appearance. Let us examine the three rationales given in the above direct quote:-
It makes the organization “more nimble”. That sounds like a good thing. However, in what way does the organization need to be ‘nimble’ in a matter like this? The possible demise of the specified organizations has been given as a reason. If there is ever reason to suspect that the FAI will become unable to continue its operations, it is clear that MAAC would have plenty of prior warning – ‘nimbleness’ would not be a factor – no change is needed in order for us to be able to deal with the situation effectively.
It provides “strength in negotiations”. Again, this sounds good – BUT – in what way does having the requirement to maintain the ACC/FAI affiliation within our Constitution reduce our ‘strength’ in negotiations? The ACC is perfectly well aware that the provision is in our constitution, and that it can be removed if it is no longer in the best interests of all MAAC members to maintain the affiliation. And what benefit would a position of greater ‘strength’ achieve for MAAC’s members, if such a thing were real? If a 10% fee reduction was achieved, that would net 15¢ per member. In reality, the latest fee increase was absorbed by ACC – MAAC saw no increase at all! So, our perceived lack of ‘strength’ doesn’t seem to have harmed us over the last 70 years. In fact, if we tried to exercise some supposed ‘strength’, we would be the mouse trying to make the sleeping elephant roll over – that can be a dangerous idea. The reality is that we are a mouse that really needs that sleeping elephant, or some part of us does anyway, and the other part of us needs it more than they might realize. We need wisdom in negotiations, not strength. No change is needed, or advisable.
It provides “more flexibility to adapt to external influences over time”. Again, it sounds good on the face of it. It has been said, in justification, that a new international body could arise that is “more aligned with MAAC’s interests” and MAAC needs the ‘flexibility’ to align itself with this potential new body if it wishes. At this point there is no identified new body that presents that option and, if such a body were to arise, we would be very aware of it long before any such choice presented itself. No more flexibility is required – no change is needed, there is nothing in our constitution as it currently stands that prevents us from aligning with whomever we choose.
“It’s the modern way”. Another justification for making the proposed change, which was not included in those that accompanied the request to complete the survey, but which has been claimed since, is that it is the ‘modern’ way to write a constitution. Being ‘modern’ is never, just in and of itself, a reasonable justification for anything. There is nothing ‘modern’, or reasonable, or ethical, about a change that produces real peril for a segment of the association’s membership – especially when it creates no gain for the association as a whole – and even if it did, the welfare of a minority should not be sacrificed on the altar of ‘majority wins’, that is the very reason that we have a constitution. It is also why countries have constitutions, and courts that uphold them – so that governments are constrained in what they can do – whether they have one more vote than their opposition or not.
THE ARGUMENTS ‘AGAINST’
So, what are the potential downsides if some future Board took advantage of this proposed change and decided to end the affiliation with the FAI?
- As demands on radio bandwidth and airspace grow, our activities come under increasing pressure. In our dealings with the Radio Advisory Board of Canada and Transport Canada, our affiliation with the international body governing aviation competition matters around the world lends us a credence that we would not otherwise have. We would be seen as simply “boys and girls with toys”. We would be disregarded. This factor has been denied by some who have been involved with the negotiations with RABC and TC – however, the people who were there when the process started, many years ago now, are acutely aware of the difference it made to us even being given a seat at the table. We should do nothing that has even a small chance that it might reduce our influence on those matters, we are in a precarious enough position as it stands.
- The loss of the affiliation would immediately mean that no Canadian could fly in any of the 58 categories of FAI-sponsored international competition – R/C Aerobatics, C/L, Indoor, Free Flight, R/C Helicopters, etc.
- Our affiliation with, and representation at, the ACC/CIAM/FAI has kept us informed of developments on the international stage and allowed us to protect the interests of Canadian aeromodellers.
- If such a change were to be made it is very unlikely that the hundreds of modelers who participate in international competition would simply give up and not participate in what they love. There would almost certainly be a move very quickly to form a new organization within Canada that would take on the international role abandoned by MAAC. That could lead to extremely disruptive litigation over many matters, including the existing substantial assets. It is certain that a new organization would have to seek group insurance. Neither entity would get the same preferential rates that our current single entity attracts. The new organization, having affiliation with the international federations, would probably become the entity representing aeromodelling to the Canadian Government as well as internationally. The loss to what would remain of MAAC could be catastrophic. The situation would be a “lose-lose” for all.
These repercussions are so serious that the framers of our Constitution deserve great praise for putting the requirement for affiliation with the ACC where they did. Changing the affiliation is difficult, deliberately, and so it should be.
WHAT DOES IT COST?
The cost of affiliation with the FAI (through ACC) was quoted in the survey as $3.52 per member. This number is quite small, but it is actually an exaggeration. The actual cost of affiliation to the ACC/CIAM/FAI is just about $1.50 per member. The other ~$2.00 is spent on travel support for world championship teams, attending meetings, etc., and is a discretionary amount voted on each year by the Board – not mandated by affiliation to the ACC. That extra $2.00, however, doesn’t include the other amounts given by the Board in support of international travel for non-FAI competitive modelling activities such as IMAC. It might be interesting to note that the MAAC board in one recent year approved a $10,000 subsidy for support of one specialist activity (IMAC R/C Scale Aerobatics) – which is close to the same amount as to support all 58 FAI activities. If the FAI were to double their fees in one year, and MAAC did not want to reduce any other budget items as a result, or deplete its substantial cash assets, it would need to increase its membership fee from $80/year to $81.50/year – less than 2%. This is hardly likely to cause an existential crisis for MAAC. To be clear – a doubling of FAI fees is an absurd scenario in the extreme, the hundreds of organizations around the world that support the FAI would not stand for it.
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE ASSOCIATION
When an organization has a monopoly mandate to represent a specific broadly-based group, whatever the interest or activity involved, there is a fundamental responsibility of that organization to protect the interests of all minorities within it. There are some who feel that, because international competition is a minority interest, this should not be supported by the organization as a whole. This is wrong, not only for the reason given above, but also as a matter of simple fairness. Those members with a minority interest support the activities of the majority with a part of their fees, in turn the majority should not object to a small part of their fees going towards supporting that minority. That is the very nature, and raison d’être, for an organization such as MAAC – we are, in fact, an association of many minorities, our strength lies in being together – not in removing the protection of a minority. No-one should be seeking to make it easier for any governing body to deny the rights of any of those minorities. Let us consider one specific (admittedly extreme) example of a person who flies indoor free flight at the world championship level. That person is a member of MAAC. He or she has no interest in radio band availability, in air space, in liability insurance, in just about anything at all that MAAC does – but he or she contributes to paying for all of those things. That may be extreme but it applies to every single one of us – we each pay for certain things that MAAC does that we individually have no specific interest in, it is the very nature of any such organization and is its strength, not its weakness
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES?
There is a very simple change to the Constitution, which would address the hypothetical concern over the demise of the FAI, if that is the motivation behind this proposal, without the above-noted downsides. If every reference to the ACC, or the FAI, in the Constitution and in the Letters Patent, had the words “or its successor” added to it, the cited problem of the potential demise of those entities would be solved. Any future Board could make the change to a successor organization seamlessly and without harm, if it became necessary. It is not our position that this change is necessary, the mechanisms already available are quite sufficient to deal with the circumstance referenced, but if the membership feels that this is a serious concern then there is this remedy, a complete re-write of our constitution is not called for.
WHAT ACTUAL CHANGES ARE PROPOSED?
In the background to this piece we mentioned that the survey that solicited the opinion of some (but not all) MAAC members on the change, described that change as moving the requirement for ACC affiliation from the Constitution to the Policy Manual. No other change was mentioned. In fact, the resolutions, which have still not been distributed to the members for their examination, even though they were submitted in November of 2019, change almost every single word of the Constitution. The only part left unchanged is Article 1 – which explains the meaning of the acronym MAAC in both French and English. Every other sentence in the document is either changed or eliminated altogether.
It has been declared vociferously that these changes do not prevent members from engaging in international competition and, indeed, that there is no intention whatsoever of doing so in the future. With that claim in mind let us look at one of the proposed changes. Article 4 – Area of Operation currently reads “The area of operation is Canada, with representation internationally as required.” The changed version under this resolution would read “The area of operation is Canada.” The claim that there is no intention of removing the ability of Canadians to fly in World Championships and other FAI-sponsored events is hard to reconcile with this proposed change to the Constitution. It is true that the changes, in themselves, do not immediately prevent anyone from flying in international competition. What the changes do, however, is enable any board, at any time, to do just that without reference to the membership until after the decision has been put into effect. There is no other direct or tangible effect than this. It has been said that “no board would ever do that!”. If that is true then why give them the power – history tells us that, once a power is given, it will be used – we even have a historical example of the action being taken by a past president when he actually didn’t have that power.
WHO IS HARMED?
An important aspect to consider in this controversy is where does the harm lie? If these resolutions are defeated and the Constitution of MAAC remains unchanged, who is harmed? The answer is – NOBODY! Everyone can continue doing what they do now, without hindrance. Neither the Association, nor its Board of Directors, is constrained from conducting its legitimate business in any real way by the Constitution as it stands – despite the vague claims made in support of making the changes. Neither is anyone else harmed in any way. Conversely, if the changes are made, and the power thus granted is used, a large number of members of MAAC will suffer severe consequences. In the short term the members most negatively affected will be those who aspire to compete on the World stage. In the long term, however, as described earlier in this piece, almost the whole of the membership of MAAC, and possibly the association itself, will suffer negative impacts from this change.
Given all of the above, we urge you, and every member of MAAC, to consider very carefully whether you wish to support this change to the Constitution. There is very grave danger if this course of action is accepted, danger to all of aeromodelling, not just the competitive aspects, and very little actual ‘upside’, despite the hypothetical ones that the supporters of this change have suggested.
SHOULD YOU VOTE?
If you want your voice heard on this matter, and if you cannot attend the AGM, either in person or virtually, then it is imperative that you use your proxy to register your vote and make sure it gets presented at the AGM. If you do not do that your vote goes directly to your zone director automatically, to use as he/she wishes – that might not be what you wish. You might also wish to download the MAAC 2025 Form of Proxy, complete it and forward or hand to your Zone Director.
To download , click the download button below the form…
IN CONCLUSION
1. The survey, encouraging members to accept resolutions from Zone D (Manitoba) was inappropriate and misleading.
2. Attempts to inform the membership of the potential downsides to the proposed actions through regular channels have been thwarted.
3. The cost of affiliation with the ACC/CIAM/FAI was exaggerated.
4. The matter of MAAC’s organizational responsibilities towards all of its members was, and continues to be, ignored.
5. The actual changes contained in the resolutions are sweeping and have never been disclosed to the membership, discussion has been discouraged.
6. The proposed changes bring no tangible benefit to MAAC, but endanger the activities of a significant minority of the members.
7. If members themselves do not vote on this issue directly then their votes will be used ‘en masse’ by their zone directors.
Please think about the effect that your decision could have on other members of MAAC. They may not fly the same way that you do, but some of their dollars go to support your activities, just as some of your dollars go to support theirs. Nobody is getting a free ride, but everyone is benefiting from supporting each other – even if you don’t think that you see the benefits in your branch of the hobby – they are actually there. MAAC is really a conglomeration of minority groups – when one minority is allowed to be harmed it is well to reflect on which minority is going to be next.
The thoughts of a number of people contributed to this opinion piece. We are all long-term members of MAAC, some have competed at the world level, some have not, some have served MAAC in a number of administrative capacities, some have not. We all have a concern that MAAC is at a crossroads and could be irreparably damaged by adoption of these resolutions for change, the consequences of which may not have been understood by a large part of the electorate if we hadn’t made this discussion public.