doug ronan removed as director from copa

[dstechnical]

DOUG RONAN (southern ont. COPA diector) has been forcibly removed as a director from COPA and had his membership revoked. All this has been engineered by the president of COPA without any input from the membership who elected him, unlike the president kevin psutka who is an employee of the association (a very well paid one at $200k/yr). It seems mr ronan had a private conversation, (not represnting copa) about the situation at toronto island, . Mr. Psutka took exception to this, he even said he would not go the AGM (another very expensive meeting for copa that may have to looked at)if Mr Ronan attended. Mr. Ronan has taken issue with copa donating $25k of our money to what seems to be a needless fight over GA usage at the toronto Island airport. (he is not the only copa member who does not agree with this). As far as I know no one has plans to ban GA from the island, there seems to be an issue with wanting to pay for hanger usage.

Mr. Ronan has be railroaded out of COPA. All members should stand up and fight for out democratic rights a members. I for one would like to know why this has been done in secret. If the board was so sure of its position than it should have went to the membership. COPA has been in ottawa for too long. WE do not expect our board to be trained seals and do whatever Psutka tells them, but too do what the membership wants

[crazy_aviator]

If $200,000 a year is a correct figure, im going to broach this subject with COPA the next time i renew, and if i dont receive an answer/discount, im NOT going to renew!! Tell me more about other wastes and dictatorship going on in my club.

PS: Im sure Doug Ronan has come a long way from the "Ron (snake oil salesman) Newberg club" and I would stand behind him if i see no fault on his part, even though we have not always seen eye to eye in the past

[single_swine_herder]

... and my contact with Mr. Psutka has always been exceptional professional and well thought through.

[2R]

COPA sat on its hands when TC impossed user fees for medicals,and when TC stopped sending out the AIP updates we were still paying the fees to Ottawa for service we not getting.User fees for a service no longer provided.

mr.putz should be proud of his useless orginization.

[Beefitarian]

This is going to be bad. Even in real life most people are probably never going to know the full truth.

There will be two sides and possibly both will have right and wrong components.

It looks like a dark time ahead for COPA. I hope the membership can move forward in a significantly positive manner.

I believe it is more difficult to operate organizations like these than ever before.

[EA757]

dstechnical,

Are you absolutely certain of all of your facts here?

I mean first hand knowledge
and not just rumours.

This is extremely serious if it is as you have presented.

[CD]

COPA sat on its hands when TC impossed user fees for medicals,and when TC stopped sending out the AIP updates we were still paying the fees to Ottawa for service we not getting.User fees for a service no longer provided.

That isn't entirely accurate ... additional information posted here:

AvCanada: Page 9, post 200

[AirFrame]

COPA website currently lists under the Executive Committee:
Paul Hayes, Chair of COPA, Southern Ontario

And under the Elected Directors:
Philip Englishman, Southern Ontario Director

If the change was to the Executive Committee, I expect that is something the directors *can* do without member input, but i'm not 100% sure on that. If the change was to one of the Elected Directors, then I agree, something strange is going on.

Of course, finding out what's really going on isn't likely to happen until we hear "from the other side" as it were.

[PilotDAR]

My choice to stop supporting COPA was made more than a decade ago, for reasons entirely I witnessed first hand, and without influence from anyone else. However, my reasons for choosing to no longer support COPA fall centrally into the theme of:

COPA sat on its hands when TC imposed.....

Several major regulatory changes, which were presented at TC meetings which I attended, and so did a COPA rep, went through with no COPA publication, or call for COPA membership resistance. COPA members were NOT well represented in those few occasions.

I did COPA the courtesy of specifically and personally describing my dissatisfaction to Directors and the President before I quit. One Director took seriously my concerns. It sounds like he will no longer carry them upward in the COPA system from the inside.... Shame....

[2R]

Thank you CD for your post.
I had forgotten about the rubber chicken hotels conferences where the opposition to any TC input was assesed, before we were all bent over and spanked with user fees.If only the pilots had someone who would could put forward an arguement that would have prevented user fees for a service that is no longer provided.
AOPA successfully stopped the FAA when they attempted to pull the same stunt down south.
You can buy the FAR/AIM at most FBOs for less than twenty bucks.

[ReserveTank]

$200,000/yr? I can't believe that there's enough membership in Canada to support this kind of salary. After all, you guys must know that COPA is a very bad knock off of AOPA, a real organization that has gone to bat for GA. COPA has done nothing of substance for GA. They're just collecting your money and providing absolutely no representation. Sure there's a forum to gripe about landing fees. You can do that for free. Stop giving these people your cash.

[Sidebar]

You can buy the FAR/AIM at most FBOs for less than twenty bucks.

You can read the CARs and TC AIM for free online, or download them for offline reference.

CARs: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... s/menu.htm
AIM: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... u-3092.htm

[DougRonan]

These are the facts ​as they happened from my seat ​- I have absolutely been criticizing the staff and the board about some serious problems that have arisen from decisions made regarding the new insurance program and the situation at the Toronto City Center Airport. All of which was basically ignored by the staff and most of the Board. After repeatedly - on behalf of the members - bringing my opinions up to the board and giving them 13 pages of clarification and detail on my opinions (at their request) - the Board's response was to vote on requesting that I resign. The vote came back asking me to resign by about 2/3 of the Board - to which I declined. Before which time I renewed my membership online which was to expire on June 30/2013. The day that I declined to resign I received an email - from COPA head office in Ottawa - refunding my membership that I had paid online. That night I received an email from the Chairman saying that because I declined to resign - my membership will not be renewed and any monies I had paid for renewal will be refunded. So even though the members of COPA voted me in for a second term of 4 years that goes until June 30, 2014 - if I'm not a member I can't be a director???

BTW - I don't have any idea who "dstechnical" that started this thread - I would be very curious to know where he got this information from??

Doug Ronan

[Colonel Sanders]

the members of COPA voted me in for a second term of 4 years that goes until June 30, 2014 - I can't be a director???

Doug: where I come from, we called that "dirty pool":

Definition of DIRTY POOL: underhanded or unsportsmanlike conduct

I can understand you being upset, but try to move
on. Being disliked by COPA is perhaps a bit like being
disliked by David Suzuki. Not something worth losing
any sleep about. Go flying. Spend time with your kids.
Play frisbee with your dog.

The other response to this - and you need to carefully
examine your motives - is to point out to COPA members
that apparently their regional directors are not actually
elected IAW the bylaws of the organization, and only
serve at the pleasure of the current President.

Personally, I would go play frisbee with the dog. The
dog will really appreciate the time you spend together,
and you will spend time with someone of better character.

[twinpratts]

meh...

[EA757]

Doug Ronan,

Thanks very much for clarifying the situation
first hand.

I was very concerned that it may have just
been a nasty rumour going around. I could not
have hoped for a better response.

Thank you and good luck.

[photofly]

It's impossible to run an organization where one board member is rogue and running in a different direction to the rest; resigning is the correct thing to do.

Even if the rest of the board is wrong, incompetent, stupid and evil then it's the responsibility of the membership to fix it, not a lone board member. If a single board member can't abide by - and assume collective responsibility with - joint decisions then he or she should resign their post.

That goes for any organisation, not just COPA.

[PilotDAR]

Photofly,

I see wisdom in your post. I had not thought of it that way (from my offside position anyway), but upon consideration, and your well selected language, I see the point.

I chose some time ago to not count myself among the COPA membership, because collectively COPA was ineffective. Perhaps this was because of very persuasive leadership in COPA prevailing over the small collective voice of the members. In any case, opportunities for regulatory development participation were lost, and to this day, aircraft owners can be needlessly and deeply burdened as a result.

COPA members, it is your association - you will get the leadership that you vote for, or fail to vote out! Back in the day, I voted them all (and myself) out, by withholding my membership.

[cap41]

I love how COPA, hides behind an email, THey have to deliver bad news via email. No respect to pick up a phone and have a conversation. I'm new to aviation, but, to me that is the chicken S*&^ way of doing business.

[Colonel Sanders]

To avoid disappointment, don't expect much from COPA.

Try spending time doing this instead. It will make you
feel much better:

If a single board member can't abide by - and assume collective responsibility with - joint decisions then he or she should resign their post.

That's certainly the path of least resistance, but
I'm not sure Sir Thomas More would entirely agree
with your pragmatic philosophy wrt dissenting opinions

[photofly]

I think dissenting opinions are fantastic. I sit on the board of a not-for-profit charity myself and I don't agree with everything the board decides to do. But we're collectively charged by the membership to come to a consensus over decisions, and required by law to be collectively responsible for them.

There's a huge role for activism and active campaigning against what the board is doing; but it has to be done from outside the board and not from within it.

Sometimes people say to me, apropos of our organisation, "we the members" - meaning mostly themselves - "demand that you do xyz. Everything else is fine, but you just need to do xyz differently". The answer is, "that's the board's collective decision. If you want xyz done differently find people who agree with you, campaign to the members, stand for the board and when you're elected you can do xyz.

"But - you will all also have to put in all the time to make and act on all the other decisions that we're now making that you agree with, because we won't be around to do that for you any more. If you feel strongly enough about xyz, that's a sacrifice you're going to have to make."

[Colonel Sanders]

Agreed. That said, I would humbly suggest to Mr Ronan
that he consider running for President of COPA.

Personally I think he would be much happier spending
his time with a dog and a frisbee (the dog certainly
would be overjoyed) but we all make choices.



I personally find that when I'm trying to make a
decision, it helps to sit down and write out stuff.

Let's make a list of the advantages of playing
frisbee with the dog, vs being a COPA director:

1) Dog is happy and exercised
2) You get a little vitamin D and exercise
3) You spend time with someone of better character
4) You have the same effect on aviation in Canada
5) Frisbee spends more time in the air than COPA directors

Just some food for thought.

[Tom H]

Sorry Photofly we are going to agree to disagree

I had been on the boards for a number of not for profit societies for about 20 years. Sat as director, Executive positions and President of some pretty substantial ones. Matter of fact after sitting as the President of the Museum I left the board and facility for a year or two and then was asked by the board to come back as the full time Executive Director to solve a whole series of problems...so now I work for one.

I think dissenting opinions are fantastic. I sit on the board of a not-for-profit charity myself and I don't agree with everything the board decides to do. But we're collectively charged by the membership to come to a consensus over decisions, and required by law to be collectively responsible for them.

I too think dissenting opinions are very important on ant board, the last thing you want as a member of a group or even as an employee is a board made up of "yes" men (people). Debate turns up flaw, errors, misconceptions and challenges direction, all good things.

But
The board is elected by the membership to represent the membership as elected. Some make decision by consensus others by majority. Yes a board is accountable and must be accountable, first to the membership and second, within defined limited and directors liability insurance, legally accountable.

There's a huge role for activism and active campaigning against what the board is doing; but it has to be done from outside the board and not from within it.

Disagree...the must be activism on the board! As well, if the decision is divisive enough or controversial or a major shift in policy/direction it must be well communicated to the members by the board for the members input in addition to the boards input and in large enough issues decided by the membership.

Sometimes people say to me, apropos of our organisation, "we the members" - meaning mostly themselves - "demand that you do xyz. Everything else is fine, but you just need to do xyz differently". The answer is, "that's the board's collective decision. If you want xyz done differently find people who agree with you, campaign to the members, stand for the board and when you're elected you can do xyz.

Again disagree
If our membership wants xyz they are invited to attend board meetings, lobby the board members and if the issue is that important call for a special meeting of the membership (through the bylaws) and have the xyz voted on. It is then up to the board to follow the memberships direction.

It is not the "boards" organization (COPA or any other aviation or non aviation organization), it is the members and the board is accountable to the members and MUST follow their direction.

"But - you will all also have to put in all the time to make and act on all the other decisions that we're now making that you agree with, because we won't be around to do that for you any more. If you feel strongly enough about xyz, that's a sacrifice you're going to have to make."

Again...most members do not wish to be involved to deal with the day to day...that's why they hire staff...most also do not want to hammer through the strategic, political, policy and direction issues. That's why they elect a board to represent them.

But if the issues is important enough the membership can direct the board to make changes and follow the memberships direction and in my opinion that is how it should be.

The Golden rule to me is simple...any elected position has been chosen by the voters to represent them.

Tom

[photofly]

Interesting points, Tom.

Partly, you're mischaracterizing my position. I'm in favour of debate, heated debate, advocacy, and activism between board members. But when push comes to shove, the board takes a vote, and comes to a decision, every member of the board has to abide by it. If the decision of the board is so heinous that a board member can't swallow the pride and go along with it, then it's time to leave the board.

In terms of what the director's responsibilities are, you're wrong in law and in fact. The directors are elected by the membership to manage the organisation. Quoting from s.21 of the Otario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (other jurisdictions have similar wording:

21. Subject to this Act, the directors of a corporation shall manage or supervise the management of the activities and affairs of the corporation. 2010, c. 15, s. 21.

There are various statutory requirements under the act that need special resolutions, but there's nothing in the act that says "directors shall obey a special resolution passed by the members." How could they? What if the members all got drunk and passed a resolution saying that "The Directors shall turn day into night?"

The golden rule is even simpler than you state it. The directors are elected to manage the organisation in accordance with the bylaws, as they see fit. If they don't do it to the satisfaction of the membership, it's up to the membership to vote them out of office.

[Tom H]

In terms of what the director's responsibilities are, you're wrong in law and in fact. The directors are elected by the membership to manage the organisation. Quoting from s.21 of the Otario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (other jurisdictions have similar wording:

I am most familiar with Alberta Law and the bylaws of the many organizations I have been involved with and that is not the case here.

There are various statutory requirements under the act that need special resolutions, but there's nothing in the act that says "directors shall obey a special resolution passed by the members." How could they? What if the members all got drunk and passed a resolution saying that "The Directors shall turn day into night?"

In our bylaws there is and the bylaws of the other 8-10 organizations I have been part of.

As to your example...our bylaws do not permit intoxicated votes...kinda solves the problem. Most others have similar.

The golden rule is even simpler than you state it. The directors are elected to manage the organisation in accordance with the bylaws, as they see fit. If they don't do it to the satisfaction of the membership, it's up to the membership to vote them out of office.

Or remove them at a special general meeting.

What I find disturbing is this...

21. Subject to this Act, the directors of a corporation shall manage or supervise the management of the activities and affairs of the corporation. 2010, c. 15, s. 21.

That is an awfully broad brush statement and little wonder Ontario wound up with the Ornge situation.

There is nothing that sweeping here, similar, but the membership retains accountability.

In my highly biased personal opinion

Tom