doug ronan removed as director from copa

[Colonel Sanders]

Can I get the phone number of the girl
in the pink shirt? It's for Eric.

[DougRonan]

I was wondering how long that was going to take!! I was betting it would be the Colonel who ask such a relevant question!!

[Blakey]

Can I get the phone number of the girl
in the pink shirt? It's for Eric.

It's actually more of a fuchsia colour and his name is Paul!

[spafloats]

Blakey,

Have you been taking interior decorating classes in your old age so you can identify colours like fuschia!? You`re just jealous about my shirt that I tried not to spill BBQ sauce on prior to the photo!!

Spafloats

[Blakey]

Nah, I'm just jealous cause you guys never come to our fly-ins. Need more pink-shirted guests I suppose!

[spafloats]

I have been admonsished by Blakey and am correcting the term "interior decorating" used in my previous post to "fashion design" My apologies!!

Spafloats

[spafloats]

A reminder that the COPA AGM is this Saturday morning June 21@10:30 CYPQ.

This is your chance let the COPA Board know your views on this subject.

Spafloats

[l_reason]

Well this is it. Today is the day everyone should get in their little airplanes, or go for a car or motorcycle ride to Peterborough. All you need to attend is a COPA membership card (even if it's not yours and you'll be voting for that person by proxy).

Can someone post some details of when the meeting is? I guess the COPA board doesn't want much of a turnout..

[Schooner69A]

Thirty seconds on the COPA website revealed the time and place...

[AirFrame]

All you need to attend is a COPA membership card (even if it's not yours and you'll be voting for that person by proxy).

Um... No. Only a member can carry a proxy for another member. And don't do stuff like carrying someone else's membership card. In the unlikely event that the fraud is noticed, the validity of any decision made at the meeting could be called into question.

We all had a problem with COPA doing sneaky, underhanded stuff. Don't stoop to that level or you're no better than they were.

[AirFrame]

Here's the latest mention of the AGM on the website. Note the convenient way of finding out who would be coming... Offer a free lunch to anyone who pre-registers...

Pre-register now for COPA Annual General Meeting and get a free lunch

The Annual General Meeting of the members of the Canadian Owners & Pilots Association is being held at the Peterborough ON Airport (CYPQ) on Saturday, June 21, 2014 at 10:30 am. The COPA Awards presentation will take place at 12:30 pm.
Other activities taking place at the airport that day include a fly-in breakfast, seminars, as well as a roast beef lunch sponsored by the Magnes Group and the Global Angel fundraising plane pull.

There is no registration fee for the AGM, and there is no charge for lunch (sponsored by COPA's insurance broker Magnes and coffee breaks (sponsored by The Personal Insurance) but in order to receive a free lunch ticket, you need to pre-register at
copa2014agm@nexicom.net or calling 1-866-840-2830.

[photofly]

Alternatively, less conspiratorially, and much more likely - they just want to know how much food to provide.

[AirFrame]

Alternatively, less conspiratorially, and much more likely - they just want to know how much food to provide.

Spoilsport.

So it's been hours since the meeting, I presume... Anyone have an update? Or is everyone in the local police lockup?

[spafloats]

At the end of this meeting I returned my 25 year member pin to the Chairman.

After being a member since 1975 I will have nothing to do with COPA.

Spafloats

[Colonel Sanders]

COPA is just an extension of TC.
Good luck trying to change either.

[PilotDAR]

I have to drop something off in Peterborough, and am thinking to fly in today - is it safe yet?

[Pavese]

At the end of this meeting I returned my 25 year member pin to the Chairman.

After being a member since 1975 I will have nothing to do with COPA.

Spafloats

Is that all that came of the protest at the AGM??

D

[spafloats]

Definitely not!

Perhaps it would be best if this question was posed to COPA Director Phil Englishman (av8phil on this forum) for his performance at the AGM. Any member who gave their proxy to him with his promise to vote it against the by-law amendment will find out that he did a complete "Benedict Arnold".

Cheryl Marek, who I spoke to during the COPA election campaign and assured me she would be voting against the by-law amendment if elected, did so as well.

Spafloats

[AirFrame]

Did anyone think to mount a gopro on their shoulder and record the meeting? I really would have liked to see it.

I suspect anyone who thought that a director would vote against the bylaw was led down the garden path from the get-go. Any director not "toeing the line" was at risk of being ousted, so how could they vote any other way?

[CpnCrunch]

I guess COPA is a lost cause.

The only option now is for Doug to bring legal action against COPA. I guess Doug probably doesn't want to be a director of this tainted organisation, but he should at least make them reinstate his illegally-removed directorship, so that he can then resign. That would bring justice to this whole thing, force COPA admit their mistake, and perhaps clue in the membership that something isn't quite right with their leadership.

As far as I can see (but note that I'm not a lawyer), Doug can apply to the court to bring an action on behalf of COPA. This way he doesn't need to put up any money as security for costs, he will be reimbursed for any reasonable legal expenses, and the court has the power to reinstate his directorship. Obviously some legal advice would be recommended, so that everything is done correctly.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... .html#h-27

[Schooner69A]

At the risk of being verbally tarred and feathered off the website, I contribute the following:

I do not know Mr Ronan, but from his biography (http://www.copanational.org/Ronan2010.cfm) tendered prior to the elections for COPA directors, I have no reason to doubt that he is other than “a good fellah” and, based on the many things in which he has participated, he appears to enjoy aviation and is extremely involved in it. Was I in that part of the world, I’d have no problem voting for him.

On the other hand, I do know Mr Hayes, and, from his biography, (http://www.copanational.org/Hayes2010.cfm) he, too, has been involved with aviation for many a year; both in the military sphere and in the civil arena. Indeed, he has held high positions in both. Was I in that part of the world, I would have easily voted for him also.

So… What we appear to have is two individuals who are successful in their own right, who are used to organizing and running things, solving problems, and, for the lack of a better expression: “getting things done”.

Now, to me that sounds like two “Type A” personalities. And what happens when you put two Type A personalities in the same room or on the same committee? Exactly!

In another life, was I to vehemently disagree with something, I would put my concerns and recommendations on paper and forward same to my superiors. Sometimes I’d be vindicated; other times, I’d be told: “We appreciate your thoughts, but the original decision will stand”. And I was OK with that; as an officer in the organization, I had done my part. Was I to disagree with that and continue to express my views or attempt to undermine the decision of my superiors, I’d be politely told to “can it”: sometimes verbally; sometimes formally. In either case, further actions on my part could be construed as “disobeying a direct order”.

Now, I have no intimate knowledge of what transpired between Mr Ronan and the rest of the Board of Directors; however, it is apparent that whatever occurred raised their ire; not only of the chairman, but (I must presume), that of some of the other board members. I say “presume” for I must surmise that this was not a unilateral decision on the part of the Chairman. Should the vehemence of the majority of posters here be pointed at directors also, and not just the chairman and president?

From my perch out here in the Okanagan, I get the impression that someone disagreed with a COPA position, internally dissented, then later publicly spoke out against it (or appeared to do so), was advised to stop, and did not. Action was subsequently taken that, in the eyes of many here, contravened that organization’s regulations.

Now, in any organization, once a decision is made, the officers/directors must speak with one voice. If an officer/director cannot do so in all conscience, there is only one recourse – resign. And then make your position public.

JJB posted many weeks ago: "Is it just me or does it seem as if the rank and file membership of COPA is kept rather unaware of what exactly is transpiring?" I think there is a simpler and more obvious reason: most, like me, consider this to be a tempest in a tea pot and not worthy of "convening a grand jury."

In closing, it is interesting that the focus of this thread has not been on what Mr Ronan did or didn’t do prior to “being relieved of duties” but on the method that was used to do so. In other words, no comment about the “crime” committed, nor the “sentence” that was imposed; only about the method that was used to enable the outcome.

John

[fleet16b]

Definitely not!

Perhaps it would be best if this question was posed to COPA Director Phil Englishman (av8phil on this forum) for his performance at the AGM. Any member who gave their proxy to him with his promise to vote it against the by-law amendment will find out that he did a complete "Benedict Arnold".

Cheryl Marek, who I spoke to during the COPA election campaign and assured me she would be voting against the by-law amendment if elected, did so as well.

Spafloats

As one of the people that gave Mr Englishman my proxy, I would like to know more about what transpired
Please elaborate on his actions

thanks

[spafloats]

Perhaps Phil would be the best person to answer this question on this forum. I would also like to hear that answer.

I wouldn`t hold my breath waiting!

Spafloats

[Tom H]

At the risk of being verbally tarred and feathered off the website, I contribute the following:

I do not know Mr Ronan, but from his biography (http://www.copanational.org/Ronan2010.cfm) tendered prior to the elections for COPA directors, I have no reason to doubt that he is other than “a good fellah” and, based on the many things in which he has participated, he appears to enjoy aviation and is extremely involved in it. Was I in that part of the world, I’d have no problem voting for him.

On the other hand, I do know Mr Hayes, and, from his biography, (http://www.copanational.org/Hayes2010.cfm) he, too, has been involved with aviation for many a year; both in the military sphere and in the civil arena. Indeed, he has held high positions in both. Was I in that part of the world, I would have easily voted for him also.

So… What we appear to have is two individuals who are successful in their own right, who are used to organizing and running things, solving problems, and, for the lack of a better expression: “getting things done”.

Now, to me that sounds like two “Type A” personalities. And what happens when you put two Type A personalities in the same room or on the same committee? Exactly!

In another life, was I to vehemently disagree with something, I would put my concerns and recommendations on paper and forward same to my superiors. Sometimes I’d be vindicated; other times, I’d be told: “We appreciate your thoughts, but the original decision will stand”. And I was OK with that; as an officer in the organization, I had done my part. Was I to disagree with that and continue to express my views or attempt to undermine the decision of my superiors, I’d be politely told to “can it”: sometimes verbally; sometimes formally. In either case, further actions on my part could be construed as “disobeying a direct order”.

Now, I have no intimate knowledge of what transpired between Mr Ronan and the rest of the Board of Directors; however, it is apparent that whatever occurred raised their ire; not only of the chairman, but (I must presume), that of some of the other board members. I say “presume” for I must surmise that this was not a unilateral decision on the part of the Chairman. Should the vehemence of the majority of posters here be pointed at directors also, and not just the chairman and president?

From my perch out here in the Okanagan, I get the impression that someone disagreed with a COPA position, internally dissented, then later publicly spoke out against it (or appeared to do so), was advised to stop, and did not. Action was subsequently taken that, in the eyes of many here, contravened that organization’s regulations.

Now, in any organization, once a decision is made, the officers/directors must speak with one voice. If an officer/director cannot do so in all conscience, there is only one recourse – resign. And then make your position public.

JJB posted many weeks ago: "Is it just me or does it seem as if the rank and file membership of COPA is kept rather unaware of what exactly is transpiring?" I think there is a simpler and more obvious reason: most, like me, consider this to be a tempest in a tea pot and not worthy of "convening a grand jury."

In closing, it is interesting that the focus of this thread has not been on what Mr Ronan did or didn’t do prior to “being relieved of duties” but on the method that was used to do so. In other words, no comment about the “crime” committed, nor the “sentence” that was imposed; only about the method that was used to enable the outcome.

John

John

That, in my eyes, could be because that is what is the greatest issue.

As this was all apparently done behind closed doors and in, as I understand it, breach of the bylaws.

If the issues of Mr. Ronan had been public, as to what he did wrong, and the process had been public and within the bylaws there would likely be no issue as to the end result of Mr. Ronan, if he was indeed acting out of mandate.

But because it has all been behind closed doors, there is an apparent breach of process and no way of really knowing if the punishment fits the crime (so to speak), there is a problem.

There is a reason for process and there is nothing in this that should not be before the members, this is a not for profit society.

The other issue is when process is not followed it certainly says something about the society.

All in my highly biased personal opinion

[fleet16b]

Well
I guess the fix is in and thats that .
As a paying member of COPA ,I am really disappointed in this outcome and the way this was handled
We had a COPA Director visit COPA Flight #1 and he openly campaigned against giving the extra powers to the Board. He went as far to assure our members that he would take their proxies to the AGM and vote as we wished . We had at least 10 handed in and all were no votes.
When I asked this Director for an update as to what happened at the AGM, here was his reply >

>Hi
I was forced by the board, under threat of being removed, to vote for the resolution. The board meeting started with a two hour barrage by asking me to resign from the board. I refused to resign. If I did, it would look bad for COPA and if I voted against the proxy they would remove me with the bylaw change as they had over 600 proxies. Either way COPA, not me, would be the loser. Sorry to have disappointed you.>

Just brutal , I would expect that a Director that I voted in would have respected my explicit wishes and voted as I directed.
What is the use in voting for anyone or anything within a group that does not honor it's
core values
This whole situation just stinks !!!