doug ronan removed as director from copa

[jjbaker]

Random thoughts and opinions on the Psutka's response

All randomly, it appears as if one can't even disassociate without having their intelligence and ability to reason insulted.
Doc, how far out, in your estimation, before we see people stepping down and jumping ship, or do you think the train will have to end in a total wreck before people change heading?

[MrWings]

Ironic that COPA executive decisions, done under the guise of keeping a united GA front, is leading to a fractured GA lobby and thereby reducing their power.

[jjbaker]

Absolute textbook response, though.

I am sad to see the group disassociate itself with COPA, whose strength is
in the number of members. The group's access to support from COPA HQ and
insurance coverage has ended but more important is the loss of solidarity.
You raised the situation at Billy Bishop airport as one of the issues and I
would like to point out that as a result of the decision to disassociate,
both COPA and the Ontario Seaplane Pilots Association will likely be less
effective at resolving seaplane issues there. Airport management can
discount anything we say by pointing to our relationship and then say "why
should we pay attention to either of you?"

Seems to sell memberships and is hence always found:

• Strength in numbers [broken record]...
• Loss of privileges before complaining about lack of solidarity....
• Picture of impending doom and gloom, for which the blame is squarely placed on departing member...

Truth:

• 1. There is no strength in numbers. There never has been, there never will be.
  2. Insurance can be bought elsewhere at same/ better prices.
  3. Speaking up about a wrong is not a lack of solidarity, it is a sign for it.
  4. The true enemy is whoever lets a minor issue like this go so far as to accept a group like OSPA to walk out.

This cancer is well known in the aviation advocacy non profit world and its considered an inconvenient truth. Stuff like this has brought a great number of associations and clubs down, not just in aviation. With 90% of the membership uninvolved, there is barely a way to get enough people alerted and aware.

Creepy stuff. No wonder we're loosing feathers left and right.

[Jungle Jim]

Guys,

Maybe we should be speaking to out local COPA flights to inform them as to what sort of underhanded things that have been occurring. Perhaps a few more flights leaving the fold may make a difference or at lease get the COPA board to take notice.

Jim

[AirFrame]

It's been discussed amongst the members at both local COPA flights that i'm involved with. Every time it comes up, the consensus is that nobody really knows all of the "facts" on either side of this argument. Nobody out here on the west coast has any skin in the game (nobody knows Mr. Ronan personally), so nobody has any incentive to do anything. Requests for more facts from COPA have been met with the Party Line(tm) response and everything else we hear comes from hearsay on the internet. Neither can be trusted to be completely truthful. It's extremely damning towards the COPA board and management, but that's where it ends. The board didn't get along with Mr. Ronan, and found a way to get him out. Yes, it was dirty pool, but it's done now.

[CpnCrunch]

Actually, we do have the pertinent fact, from COPA's website:

"The Board felt that it could not simply stand by and allow such actions by one of its members to undermine the effectiveness of COPA. Accordingly, the Board asked for Mr. Ronan’s resignation. When same was refused, the Board instructed its staff not to renew the membership of Mr. Ronan, which expired on June 30, 2013"

Really, this is the only fact that matters. The bylaws state that you have to go to the members to remove a director, but they chose this dubious back-handed removal instead. They haven't answered any questions about why they chose this method of removing Doug Ronan.

I think that asking them questions about Toronto Airport, insurance or anything else just lets them divert attention from the main point. Really it doesn't matter what Doug Ronan did. Perhaps he did something he shouldn't have, or perhaps he is entirely in the right. The only important issue is how he was removed. If he did something wrong they should have followed the bylaws and asked the members to remove him.

[AirFrame]

I agree. A statement from the board explaining why they didn't follow their own bylaws would be wonderful. Good luck with that. As I said, the board will never admit what they did was "wrong" and any questions trying to get to the bottom of that question will be ignored or deflected to the party line non-answer... Because there are no consequences to not answering the question. The membership doesn't consider it a serious enough issue.

Many people who have been sidetracked with the various stories about what Mr. Ronan did and what Mr. Psutka did figure that in the grand scheme of things, errors may have been made on both sides of the story, and at the end of the day the best result was probably for the two parties to go their separate ways anyway... If he wasn't removed this way, he'd ultimately be removed another way anyway eventually.

[hoptwoit]

Actually, we do have the pertinent fact, from COPA's website:

"The Board felt that it could not simply stand by and allow such actions by one of its members to undermine the effectiveness of COPA. Accordingly, the Board asked for Mr. Ronan’s resignation. When same was refused, the Board instructed its staff not to renew the membership of Mr. Ronan, which expired on June 30, 2013"

Really, this is the only fact that matters. The bylaws state that you have to go to the members to remove a director, but they chose this dubious back-handed removal instead. They haven't answered any questions about why they chose this method of removing Doug Ronan.

If he did something wrong they should have followed the bylaws and asked the members to remove him.

+1 As someone from the west I am unaware of the facts regarding the divisive issues that stood between the board direction and Mr Ronan's. I am however very disappointed with the mechanism that was used to remove Mr Ronan. Even if the board was acting in the best interests of it's members, the method they chose to solve it was wrong and calls into question the integrity of COPA current leadership as whole. If they chose an easy shortcut here, where else have the taken the easy path.
As a flight captain I have no more information than anyone else and in all honesty the only reason we formed a COPA flight was to participate in the COPA for kids program.
Any discounts from membership here in the west anyway are near to unrecognised.
The insurance program has always been higher than I could get on my own.
I am unaware of any action taken to support The Edmonton Muni airport (The oldest licenced aerodrome in Canada) which was just closed or any support for Parkland which is meeting with resistance but so far is holding its own. So really other than COPA for kids and a paper I am kind of questioning the

effectiveness of COPA

[kamikaze]

"Really, this is the only fact that matters. The bylaws state that you have to go to the members to remove a director, but they chose this dubious back-handed removal instead. They haven't answered any questions about why they chose this method of removing Doug Ronan.

I think that asking them questions about Toronto Airport, insurance or anything else just lets them divert attention from the main point. Really it doesn't matter what Doug Ronan did. Perhaps he did something he shouldn't have, or perhaps he is entirely in the right. The only important issue is how he was removed. If he did something wrong they should have followed the bylaws and asked the members to remove him."

This.

It is illegal to revoke a membership in the way they did, in accordance with the NFP Corporations Act ... as was already discussed some pages ago.

That should bother EVERYBODY, whether or not you care about Mr. Ronan's plight.

[BGH]

I don't know Ronan,but I do know that I was unhappy with COPA's own board not following the bylaws as written.I wrote Psutka asking why & was sent the bums rush out the email door.I then wrote Hayes & explained that if that were tried anywhere else a riot would ensue.His answer to me was to read their paper again as the answer was there.I sent the paper back unopened & asked for a refund on my year remaining & was told that wasn't possible - so I just cancelled my membership.Seems the only way to get their attention is to cost them members & money.There were good people in COPA,perhaps in the future when these 2 characters are gone there can be again.

Former Member 1500860

Daryl

[AirFrame]

Actually, we do have the pertinent fact, from COPA's website:

"The Board felt that it could not simply stand by and allow such actions by one of its members to undermine the effectiveness of COPA. Accordingly, the Board asked for Mr. Ronan’s resignation. When same was refused, the Board instructed its staff not to renew the membership of Mr. Ronan, which expired on June 30, 2013"

The COPA bylaws require memberships to be approved by the President, do they not? I forget the exact wording from the bylaws... but if that recollection is correct, the quote above is strictly speaking still within the bylaws, even if it's a bit of a roundabout, sneaky, and underhanded way to get to the answer they wanted. Dissenting board member applies for renewal, President refused application, membership therefore expires, and the applicant can no longer hold office.

Someone has also mentioned the question of the timing, in which Mr. Ronan apparently was allowed to renew and then shortly afterwards the membership was rescinded. This shouldn't come as any surprise, as one would need to apply (which typically includes payment up front these days) before their application for membership renewal could be given to the President for approval. So *when* you pay doesn't really matter... COPA can still refund it if you don't get approved. Once your application for renewal is approved, however, you should be golden until the following renewal.

At least, if I understand the bylaws correctly. One wonders if they were written with this loophole intentionally...

[CpnCrunch]

The COPA bylaws require memberships to be approved by the President, do they not?

Here is what it says:

"Membership in the Corporation shall be available to individuals and
corporations wishing to further the objects of the Corporation who have applied
for and been accepted into membership in the Corporation by resolution of the
Board or in such other manner as may be determined by the Board. "

However once a member has been accepted in the past (as Doug Ronan has), that doesn't mean you can terminate him. There is a procedure laid out for removing a membership, and you can only remove a member by having a vote of the membership (same as removing a director).

[jjbaker]

However once a member has been accepted in the past (as Doug Ronan has), that doesn't mean you can terminate him. There is a procedure laid out for removing a membership, and you can only remove a member by having a vote of the membership (same as removing a director).

I happen to remember a situation in which I was serving as a administrative volunteer for an aviation association (~ 800-1000 hours per year) and held a complimentary membership as well as the privilege to give out complimentary memberships during events and in my day to day business. Certain kahoohoo's happened, triggering me to announce my stepping down from my function effective a certain date, well in advance of the expiration of my membership. Remark: I wasn't member elected, I was board appointed with business card and email account within the association.

Despite the fact that two people on the Board of Directors had taken severe offense to my speaking up about certain facts and issues (which in unison with a whole bunch of other people and their discoveries, led to the political demise of the Executive Director as well as the chairman of the board), my complimentary membership was still offered up for renewal.

In other words, "we'll fight you to the bone, if necessary in court or by lynchmobbing you, but we'll take your money if you are dumb enough to give it to us". Every single attack on me (forum administration profile, infiltration of email communique and badmouthing) happened in absolute secrecy and in such a way that I could not act legally upon it. Side-note: The badmouthing and character defamation continues up to 4 years later, but at least there is no longer any open conflict. My site suffers every single day for what happened then, but such is life if you elect not to go with the flow and create a matter of inconvenience for people.

However, I doubt highly that even people who hated my guts and pure existence at the time, would have had the balls or the stamina to cancel my membership in order to get me out. Its bad form, bad etiquette, bad PR, bad leadership, its' BAD, BAD, BAAAAD! Additionally it is stupid, 99% of the time in violation of bylaws, overstepping of authority, misrepresentation of membership and I fear even a tiny whee bit illegal. Yet, despite dealing with monsters, such was never done to me or anyone I know or have ever met. Its such a milkmaids fix to an inconvenience, its laughable and silly if it could ever stay a secret.

As if nothing had ever happened I received a renewal notice at which time I was respectfully informed that my "privilege" to afford complimentary memberships had ceased and I was no longer eligible for a complimentary membership. At the time I was an extreme problem for certain characters within the association in question and god knows everything under the sun (including threats of lawsuits) was done to restrict or prevent me from making members aware of ongoing issues. Without a doubt the single one thing that got me out of volunteering or associations in general was those 3 years, during which I met both spectra of aviation associations and was afforded a first hand look behind the curtains.

I remember one instance (I was still a protege and informed of being a board member potential) in which the then sitting chairman of the board informed me about who gets a seat on the board and what happens to those who object and resist the greater vision. "We make them, and we break them. During the next several months I will strategically replace all the naysayers with proper people, meanwhile grooming each individuals replacement." Just a mere two years after he said that to me, the association was almost buckling under a quarter million dollars worth of lawsuit threats, and nearly hijacked and out of the boards control.

Much later, when the true boo men had been allowed to leave with their dignity and wallets intact (threatening lawsuits for wrongful discharge and being removed from boards they had a "right" to sit on until their terms were up) I found myself invited to apply for the position of executive director for that very same association and supposedly even made it into the finalists group (8 out of 200+) for closer inspection and further consideration. I later learned details about my and one of the other candidates (also an applicant at the time) applications and what had been done with them, that made me get to within an inch of rescinding my candidacy. At the time, my colleague actually rescinded his, together with a full cancellation of membership.

I know, this is a long text and everyone is tired of the subject, or willing to kill the messenger to make the truth go away, but every association has the leadership it wishes to have. Yes, it is time to move closer together and find the good and promotional items in our industry, but its wrong to shut people up just because you don't want to hear it. I also have no personal quarrel with Mr. Psutka, I remember him as extremely friendly and open-minded back in the day when I started my little grassroots site. It is scary to think what he might have endured over the last several years to be of such hard lines these days.

Silent, stoic and deaf members are just as poisonous to the industry and community as the worst enemy we could ever wish for.
I have no horse in the race, what happens to COPA, AOPA or any of those groups does not cost me a dime out of pocket and no longer any sleep. I just can't stand it when otherwise smart and engaged people who have the option and the power to change things choose to remain silent and do nothing, just to avoid the bumper car ride that ensues from open and honest conflict. We won't need regulations and citizen groups, if 95% of our community is "along for the ride". Pay up, sit here and shut up. Take the money out of it, and the nonmember essentially gets the same treatment. Why pay money, then? Just to belong to some club?

It is wrong for us to stand by (member or not, even we "free-riders" and "aviation enemies" still have a right to an opinion) and let things like this happen. The rats tail on stuff like this is more dangerous and exposing than the whole scary looking rat. We don't need it, and if not for the current and leaving generation of pilots, then at least for future generations, I hope we can do better than this. Tl,dr or not - I am resting my case and go back to knitting and growing mushrooms now.

[H Christensen]

Months after the fact of the COPA Board's incredibly tacky withdrawal of Ronan's membership and, as a consequence, the legitimacy of his being the Southern Ontario COPA Director, I've finally been allowed to resign my membership in protest.
Mind you, my "resignation" comes about only because my membership fee is now due.
But, hey. Whatever works!

[CpnCrunch]

I'm pretty sure I read in the last COPA newsletter that Paul Hayes was resigning his Directorship.

[H Christensen]

Yes, Hayes has resigned effective, as I understand it, at the next general meeting (June, Peterborough) but that doesn't address the character assassination perpetrated on Doug Ronan.
He may be a pain in the ass, he may have annoyed Hayes, president Kevin Psutka and the COPA Directors immensely, but where does it stipulate that members of the Board have to play nice?
Reinstate Doug Ronan or, at the least, offer profound apologies for the COPA Board's exceedingly harsh and draconian behaviour.

[CFR]

Yes, Hayes has resigned effective, as I understand it, at the next general meeting (June, Peterborough) but that doesn't address the character assassination perpetrated on Doug Ronan.
He may be a pain in the ass, he may have annoyed Hayes, president Kevin Psutka and the COPA Directors immensely, but where does it stipulate that members of the Board have to play nice?
Reinstate Doug Ronan or, at the least, offer profound apologies for the COPA Board's exceedingly harsh and draconian behaviour.

Read the latest COPA newsletter and you will find that the bylaw covering Directors is being changed so that they have to "play nice" or they will be removed.

[H Christensen]

I did read that item but I believe it will have relevance only after a positive vote at the AGM, but I stand to be corrected.

[CFR]

You are correct it needs to be voted on. UNlikely that it will not get passed, but here is the opportunity that folks want to speak to the issue as it should be discussed prior to being voted on. Interested to hear the boards justification for the change.

[Lost Lake]

Just coming up to my 24th year. Without sifting through all the posts what exactly did Doug do? Did he do something immoral, unethical, or illegal?

[PilotDAR]

Did he do something immoral, unethical, or illegal?

Nah, my understanding (from Doug) is that he just expressed his opinion, in the better interest of GA in the Toronto area. This apparently was not the view held by the other COPA leadership, so they chose to disallow Doug's opinion, in a rather heavy handed way. I think that Doug was moral, ethical, and certainly legal....

[DougRonan]

Just coming up to my 24th year. Without sifting through all the posts what exactly did Doug do? Did he do something immoral, unethical, or illegal?

Me - absolutely not - other people involved - ????

But because of some lawyer in Ottawa - paid by your COPA membership dollars - that's all I am able to say!!

I take my reputation very seriously and have worked very hard to maintain a good reputation for 25 plus years in this business - this whole situation is very disturbing and frustrating to those that know the truth but my conscience is 100% clear!!

[AirFrame]

Just to be clear, Doug, are you saying you've been given a gag order?

[H Christensen]

I appreciate that while the question is Ronan's to answer, it's not hard to imagine a small business owner or a salaried individual being threatened by a lawyer representing a client with deep pockets.
Before the principle of the dispute, he would have to look at the ensuing financial nightmare should such a judicial fight be engaged; the very reason so much litigation never sees the light of day.

[jjbaker]

Me - absolutely not - other people involved - ????

But because of some lawyer in Ottawa - paid by your COPA membership dollars - that's all I am able to say!!

David vs. Goliath games rarely work out in the benefit of David, however the simple fact that there is a threat of litigation just to hide and avoid the truth, is, or should be enough for members and prospective members to build their own opinions. The effects of this are either immediate (open conflict & lawsuit) or timely deferred (public relations issue that drags on for years). Neither clears the air sufficiently and leaves burned dogs behind. The change in bylaws to deal with visionary disobedient and straying board members indicates the poisonous kind of autocracy that prevents true progress. Rule # 1: The KING rules and is always right. Rule #2: Should the King ever be wrong, please refer to Rule #1.

"Integrity Is A Choice. It is consistently choosing the simplicity and purity of truth over popularity."

I take my reputation very seriously and have worked very hard to maintain a good reputation for 25 plus years in this business - this whole situation is very disturbing and frustrating to those that know the truth but my conscience is 100% clear!!

Reputations are a very funny thing in aviation and hard to control by their owners, especially when all the things that damage your reputation are happening behind the curtain and underground. The most important thing in the end is that you go to bed every night knowing that you did what you could, stayed honest and did what allowed your conscience to remain clear. At least you had fellow members who stood up in your defense.

The second positive aspect is that situations like these allow outsiders and prospects a chance to see in advance what they are signing up for, when thinking about volunteering or serving on any board in the aviation advocacy association world. In no other industry sector of aviation have I ever seen so many threats for litigation and there have been a few in my last 25 years in aviation, too...