We are pretty much saying the same thing just a little different structure.
All good points but there must be some way for the membership to have control of this CEO and Board .
The membership needs to have control of the Board, absolutely, the board must be accountable and transparent.
The Board needs to have control of the CEO and be accountable for how the CEO is directed.
The CEO must be accountable to the Board for their performance and actions and operations must be transparent to the membership.
we the membership should be reviewing this performance at intervals and voting on whether to continue that persons tenure in the position or not.
Here is where we differ in command and control structure.
The membership should be reviewing the performance of the Board at intervals and voting on their tenure based on their performance.
The CEO should be having their performance reviewed by the Board and reported to the membership.
To get qualified people to bite off positions like CEO/ED there has to be "one" boss and their position must be evaluated on performance...otherwise you don't get qualified people.
That is in real shorthand why there needs to be that kind of structure.
Key...Getting the Board under control, the rest falls into place.
In my highly biased personal opinion
Tom
Again all good points and I agree completely
In a perfect world that is exactly the way things should be and may have been at COPA at one time
but we are far from there now as events have shown .
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by fleet16b on Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
CFR wrote:4.11 Absentee Voting by Proxy
Every Member entitled to vote at a meeting of Members may appoint a
proxyholder, or one or more alternate proxyholders, who need not be a Member,
to attend and act at the meeting in the manner and to the extent authorized by the
proxy and with the authority conferred by it subject to the following:
This is an interesting clause, as it was reported to me that they were checking membership cards at the door. I wonder how someone who wasn't a member, but who was assigned a proxy (or proxies) by a member (or members) would have been treated at the door?
Regardless, the proxy document that we were offered is what I believe is termed an "open proxy", which means the holder can vote in any way they so choose, regardless of how the person who assigned them the proxy wanted them to vote.
Personally, I would not be happy with a locked-in proxy. If the board decided to do something to really *fix* this mess, say by firing the President, dismissing the Chair(*), or something equally major and genuinely an expression of "hey, we f*cked up, we'd like to fix it, let us try", my position on my proxy may want to change. If I had already locked in a proxy that said "vote everything down", my proxyholder would not be able to participate in helping make changes for the betterment of COPA. I *want* the person I choose to represent me, to be able to be flexible if the situation changes.
The challenge is to be sure that the person you choose to represent you, will think the way you do if situations change.
(*) I offer these as examples only, i'm not advocating that either are the "right course of action".
CFR wrote:4.11 Absentee Voting by Proxy
Every Member entitled to vote at a meeting of Members may appoint a
proxyholder, or one or more alternate proxyholders, who need not be a Member,
to attend and act at the meeting in the manner and to the extent authorized by the
proxy and with the authority conferred by it subject to the following:
This is an interesting clause, as it was reported to me that they were checking membership cards at the door. I wonder how someone who wasn't a member, but who was assigned a proxy (or proxies) by a member (or members) would have been treated at the door?
Regardless, the proxy document that we were offered is what I believe is termed an "open proxy", which means the holder can vote in any way they so choose, regardless of how the person who assigned them the proxy wanted them to vote.
Personally, I would not be happy with a locked-in proxy. If the board decided to do something to really *fix* this mess, say by firing the President, dismissing the Chair(*), or something equally major and genuinely an expression of "hey, we f*cked up, we'd like to fix it, let us try", my position on my proxy may want to change. If I had already locked in a proxy that said "vote everything down", my proxyholder would not be able to participate in helping make changes for the betterment of COPA. I *want* the person I choose to represent me, to be able to be flexible if the situation changes.
The challenge is to be sure that the person you choose to represent you, will think the way you do if situations change.
(*) I offer these as examples only, i'm not advocating that either are the "right course of action".
Valid points for sure
---------- ADS -----------
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
Much earlier in this thread, there was debate about whether to effect change from within and retain membership, or to stop pouring fuel on the fire (stop sending them money).
An email arrived from the COPA Flight#8 Captain, summarizing the AGM:
"I attended the COPA AGM in Peterborough and can give a quick review of a rather raucous and at times heated meeting. The heat related to the Doug Ronan affair. You may recall that Ronan was on the COPA Board representing Southern Ontario when he disagreed with the decisions taken by the full board on how to deal with Toronto Island. Rather than resign from the board because he disagreed with their approach he went public with his views. The board, and apparently most members voting at the AGM agree, that the board should only speak with one voice. It would be impossible for the association to function if board members publicly expressed disagreements with decisions. The bottom line was that members voted in favour of the actions taken by the board, and COPA is alive and only slightly wounded by the Ronan affair."
One point in which I believe is Board solidarity: Behind closed doors go ahead and argue/debate/disagree - but when the Board makes a decision it is also your [public] decision. Ask for a recorded vote to CYA, stay silent in public, but either put up with the decision of the Board or resign. DR spoke out, which put the Board in a bad position.
That said, forcing a Director out the back door by not following the By-Laws of the day, swung my decision. What Psutka did, either on his initiative or on the request of the Board, stunk.
My COPA membership expires at the end of June. I will not be renewing.
COPA handled this issue by not responding publicly - you cannot have a debate with someone if they refuse to talk.
Similarly, the members can starve COPA. For money. Their cost base is huge and fixed. Consuming the reserves for operating expenses won't sit well - they'll be known as the Board that spent COPA into oblivion.
COPA seems to exist for the direct benefit of a few. Big salaries, especially. Having read the newspaper from front to back for the last few years, they seem to be an organization that claims a lot of activity, but frankly I don't see many, if any, results. Don't confuse activity with results, only one has a benefit.
There is always the position that COPA speaks as our united voice for GA in Canada. Funny, COPA does not seem to ask us peons what our opinions are - apparently they're much more intelligent and illuminated than we are, and don't need the input. Or dissenting voices.
Despite the blather about protecting the "Freedom to Fly", and asking us to worship at the altar of Our Saviour of General Aviation, the reality is that I can continue my hobby without being a member of COPA. But now they have a few less tens of dollars, and eventually, hopefully, they cannot continue their hobby of living off the fat of the collective wallet.
Funny. When you live in the same city, you know people who have worked at COPA, and people who do work at TC, and people who work at other organizations where COPA "advocates" on behalf of GA. There are differing opinions as to the effectiveness of COPA. COPA might sit at the table, but few are listening to the drone.
The one thing I will miss are the Events listings in the COPA newspaper, not because I want to fly somewhere and meet the President, but because I like flying somewhere for breakfast. Someone should start a Forum, on this site, to supplant the COPA fly-in advertisements.
COPA seems to exist for the direct benefit of a few. Big salaries, especially. Having read the newspaper from front to back for the last few years, they seem to be an organization that claims a lot of activity, but frankly I don't see many, if any, results. Don't confuse activity with results, only one has a benefit.
There is always the position that COPA speaks as our united voice for GA in Canada. Funny, COPA does not seem to ask us peons what our opinions are - apparently they're much more intelligent and illuminated than we are, and don't need the input. Or dissenting voices.
Despite the blather about protecting the "Freedom to Fly", and asking us to worship at the altar of Our Saviour of General Aviation, the reality is that I can continue my hobby without being a member of COPA. But now they have a few less tens of dollars, and eventually, hopefully, they cannot continue their hobby of living off the fat of the collective wallet.
My feelings exactly. I formed this opinion of change to the lesser effective over several years between 10 and 15 years ago, spoke to my COPA Director at the time, who did not disagree with me, and then chose to no longer support COPA. My COPA director was more recently "fired" for trying to keep the "general" in the GA that COPA is supposed to represent.
Now, instead of the COPA pages, I read, and post on AvCanada, and it is fine.....
Hi To everyone
I am glad to see some positive good suggestions.
Just a caution giving up your membership quieting COPA isn't the fix we need the numbers to have a strong voice in Ottawa.
Please lets work to a fix not a destruction of an association which as done great things in the past and has the potential to do it in the future!!
A reminder despite these problem COPA is our Canadian association.
Happy Canada Day to everyone and may we all act the way Canadians Do in all parts of the world, With tolerance, and understanding as peace keepers!!!
Gord001 wrote:Hi To everyone
I am glad to see some positive good suggestions.
Just a caution giving up your membership quieting COPA isn't the fix we need the numbers to have a strong voice in Ottawa.
Please lets work to a fix not a destruction of an association which as done great things in the past and has the potential to do it in the future!!
A reminder despite these problem COPA is our Canadian association.
Happy Canada Day to everyone and may we all act the way Canadians Do in all parts of the world, With tolerance, and understanding as peace keepers!!!
For COPA to be our national voice blah blah blah, we need COPA to be effective. My impression is that COPA is treating their membership as a source of cash, and not much else.
There are precious few ways to give them a poke in the ass with a sharp stick - the most appropriate way is to get involved and become a regional director, however, expect to be ejected from the organization or muzzled or brow-beaten, so we can forget that option. The second most effective way is to starve them into submission. My missing few bucks won't even pay the President's wages for an hour.... but enough missing dollars will give no recourse but to get them to pay attention to the membership. We are, after all, paying the bills. Even a small drop in membership will cause stress.
And that's a Good Thing.
The objective is not to cause COPA to cease to exist. It is to get them to be responsive to the membership, and get them realize that their effectiveness at representing us, and their responsiveness to the members, needs to significantly increase. At least, both these changes need to happen to get my money again. YMMV.
Vote with your wallet. COPA is an entrenched
bureaucracy which does not represent it's
members. Why on earth you would voluntarily
part with your after-tax income, to give it
to such an organization is beyond me.
I'll do something positive.... If I become aware that there has been a massive resignation "at the top" of COPA, and a new mission statement to serve the members as the first responsibility, I'll rejoin, and take the chance with the new leaders....
I haven't replied to anything in this thread since very early,but have continued to follow it.I could have written an I told you so to all those who believed that a director would vote as they instructed & not as the other directors told him to.My personal opinion is that the only way to correct copa's problem is to starve them of cash - that is the only message that they will understand.
I was a member for over 22 years & have been an aircraft owner for almost 31 years.
I voted with my wallet & it wasn't for copa.
Pop n Fresh wrote:Time to form a replacement club?
Pilots Existing Across Canada Harmoniously.
Great idea...but
Having been down this path with another not for profit I can attest that no matter how hard fixing COPA is...it's easier than starting from scratch. Done both so that's first hand.
It is now in the members hands.
If there are really that many out there that are convinced COPA is no longer following the mandate and playing by the rules its time to involve the various levels of government to pull in an investigation.
It is also time to vote with petition demanding a dissolution of the current board and new elections.
But both of these things take large numbers of members willing to stand up...are there large numbers of members willing to stand up?
Canada needs a national organization that represents recreational. private and general aviation, it is how the aviation is going to survive through our lifetime.
So...fix it or replace it...we still need it.
In my highly biased personal opinion
Sorry for leaving. I had stopped messing with making an acronym and did not realize I had posted.
I am like you and would rather fix something than replace it but, I believe the shenanigans at the AGM are proof that it is broken beyond repair.
I hope the nay Sayers are wrong. I for one an going to attempt to do what ever I can to get involved at a national level and see what can be done to solve the members concerns. Please send me any suggestions as I would like to see some amendments to the bylaws to prevent this in the future.
Happy Canada Day
Gord001 wrote:I hope the nay Sayers are wrong. I for one an going to attempt to do what ever I can to get involved at a national level and see what can be done to solve the members concerns. Please send me any suggestions as I would like to see some amendments to the bylaws to prevent this in the future.
Happy Canada Day
The first step would be for the Board to come clean on what has happened behind doors .
The Boards credibility has been greatly damaged by what is happening
This infomation is the business of all of us , there should be nothing held back for the boards eyes and ears only.
What level of involvement do you have with COPA ?
Do you hold a position either Nationally or within your Chapter ?
Maybe you should start by posting these questions in the COPA Forum section .
A fair and transparent Board would have no reason to shut down the discussion if they have done no wrong.
It is healthy for an organization to debate such things
---------- ADS -----------
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........
The problem seems to be that most of the members aren't aware of what is going on. Taking avcanada as a small sample, it appears that the majority of members disagree with the board once they have the full facts (or at least, what appears to be the full facts, although we still don't have 100% of the story). The reason most members voted for the bylaw change is simply because they believed the 1-sided argument put forward by COPA.
Was there no debate about this during the AGM? Were there no questions asked about the legality of Doug's removal? I was hoping that spafloats (or someone else) would speak up at the AGM and convince the members to vote against the bylaw change and get Doug reinstated.
Wouldn't have helped, the people AT the AGM are a small minority of voters, with most voters represented by default proxy, I believe?
The whole concept of proxies going to someone "by default" is kind of bizarre and rather anti-democratic. That's like saying Harper decides my vote if I abstain from voting federally. gee wiz, I wonder what he'll do!
In this day and age, they should just put the AGM online, and let people participate virtually, IMO (including voting). the auction houses can do it!
I was waiting for the AGM to happen, not much seems to have moved, so I think I'll work on getting out of it ... (I use both the VIP and home/auto policies through them).
In reply to Cpn Crunch: I was at the meeting and tried my best to ask questions but was cut off, ruled out of order and a called a few things that were slanderous. The "fix was in" before this meeting even started and was being run to a script.
CpnCrunch wrote:The problem seems to be that most of the members aren't aware of what is going on.
This is essentially it. If it wasn't for AvCanada, I wouldn't know.
COPA's failure to address the incident essentially kept the incident quiet. That is why they chose to do it. It was a local issue. Surprising there wasn't a great turnout considering the meeting was in their backyard.
kamikaze wrote:Wouldn't have helped, the people AT the AGM are a small minority of voters, with most voters represented by default proxy, I believe?
The whole concept of proxies going to someone "by default" is kind of bizarre and rather anti-democratic. That's like saying Harper decides my vote if I abstain from voting federally. gee wiz, I wonder what he'll do!
If the board were smart, they'd now change the bylaws to allow default proxies for all votes. Then nobody would ever be able to gather enough proxies to counter anything the board wanted to do... All the defaults would go to someone on the board (usually the president or chair). Companies work that way, but generally not non-for-profits.
However, the proxies for this AGM were not defaulted if you didn't send one in. Only proxies that were sent in were used for voting. From discussions i've had with people who were in attendance, it sounds like there were ~600 people present in person or by proxy at the AGM, but COPA has something in excess of 10000 members (someone correct me if i've got that wrong).
fleet16b wrote:Well
It looks like Kevin P has announced his retirement from COPA
Much earlier in this thread I had posted that I would not be renewing my membership with COPA. I didn't.
About 2-3 weeks ago I had a member of the Board give me a phone call. The trigger was that I had not renewed, and she (maybe all members of the Board) were calling through the list of non-renewed members inquiring why they had not renewed, and asking if I would rejoin. Let me give full marks to the Director (and maybe to the entire Board) for taking their time to work the phones, and to reach out to members.
It was a good conversation. This individual really cares. That said, I declined to rejoin, and shared my reasons why. Basically, nothing has changed.
With today's announcement: let the speculation begin. Maybe, after 18 years, Kevin P thought it was time for a change. Maybe others thought it was time for a change.
The audited Annual Report notes that an $80K payout is due to certain member(s) of COPA management under certain conditions. Let's see if that payout gets triggered.
fleet16b wrote:Well
It looks like Kevin P has announced his retirement from COPA
And this is an opportuinty to change. Throughout this discussion, I have been seeing odd similarities with what has been going on with the Ontario Curling Association over the past 15 months--- an executive director who has been in for 15 years, a hand selected board of puppets, mismanagement, executive members terminated for no reason and not by the proper methods etc.. Curiously similar. Some of us took a stand last year, resulting in 2 SGMs, 3 no confidence votes. At the first SGM the ED took it to himslef to invite the local constabulary as he was afraid what we might do -- yes a bunch of curlers- quite surreal (and very similar to what I read about with last year's COPA meetings).
Result - the ED 'retired', a new ED was hired. The OCA was forced to form a ByLaw review committee which is now giving it's reports - to bring the association into the 21st Century.
A new chairman of the board is in place while the search now begins for a new president.
It's a start at rehabilitating what once was -- and can be again -- an ethical association.
