Forum Posts

Stephanie MacRae
Jun 14, 2018
In Discussions
**Posted on behalf of Andrew Arbic on May 18, 2018.** We are definitely at a cross roads, the likes of which I have not seen in my 19 years. Over time, there have been many heated issues and sometimes questions about member’s agendas and such, but never to this extent. I’m wondering just how many other members have been negligent like me? I hadn’t really looked into the allegations, nor did I realize the seriousness of the allegations and how much time had gone by while things were being investigated. I guess I was indifferent and assumed the Executive would work things out, like they always seem to do. I honestly didn’t think this could be a “Troy vs Dave” kind of thing, considering they’ve always been committed and hardworking to the benefit of our membership. Then a March meeting took place, attended by about twice the normal/usual amount of members (45, and which I could not attend) By the May 1st meeting we were back to the typical numbers, and the March 8th minutes were made available. Dave had been reinstated, yet again there were less members coming out to hear, to question where things were at. Most of the meeting unfolded like any other, until VP St Germain had an opportunity to comment on how the last few months have gone for himself, and that he has been feeling like he’s been badmouthed and chastised over presenting the allegations in the first place. Members who were present had more and more questions about the allegations and about what the investigation had found. A number of topics were clarified by the Executive. Clarification was given as it related to bookkeeping and records relating to the allegations. Some wondered how some of these issues had continued to fester for so long,..Long story short, some things are still unresolved and feelings are still very touchy. A reasonable person looking into this situation from the outside, would or should feel that there has been a pattern of behaviour which has affected the climate in our Executive, and perhaps prevented them from working more effectively as a team. The end result was a motion to have our President step down or have a vote of no confidence. Should Dave remain as our president, we will lose Troy and perhaps others. I was given the impression that this process, this investigation has been extremely hard on all Executive members. People have been losing sleep. Is this what our executive members thought they would be doing when they signed up? Are we paying them enough to represent the membership to the best of their ability and then do their best to resolve this hugely divisive investigation? Was all this necessary under the circumstances? Answer is Yes. Was this meant as a direct and “precise attack” on our president, or a culmination of concerns about how he has taken liberties while serving the membership. Many have tried to reply to this by asking who has the most to gain from all this? It seemed to some who were present May 1st that our association is divided, that the “allegations”, not “accusations”, are concerning enough to ask for our president to step down. Some will suggest this to be the honourable course of action for the greater good of our divided association and the Executive. Some would say that they would never find themselves in the same debacle as Dave MacLean, and if they did, they would certainly take responsibility for their actions. Troy had suggested that had responsibility been taken, had Dave taken steps to address these concerns of him taking advantage or for having taken liberties while at the helm, the Executive could have moved on with clearer expectations of Dave and of themselves. Fortunately, this process seems to have identified a number of changes that are necessary for the Executive to avoid similar problems or conflicts in the future. Just not sure who all wants to put their names in should members quit the executive. I would hope that more discussion could be had Tuesday prior to a vote of no confidence, given that only 24 people attended the May 1st meeting which followed the March 8th meeting. I wonder if everyone has really taken the time to review the website, reviewed the documentation and results of the investigation, because members don’t seem to want to attend the meetings for some reason. Have members taken the time to touch base with the Executive with questions/concerns? As mentioned, some have suggested that the involved members have acted out in order to gain something from all this conflict. Let me suggest that this divisiveness amongst our membership means we’ll most likely lose something after Tuesday’s meeting. Just not sure what any of us will be gaining. Andrew

Stephanie MacRae

More actions