American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

[bshwakr]

""

[Iceaxe]

If you are intent on creating an organization that 'speaks' for all canyoneers, I would suggest Shane, Tom, Phil, etc not set it up; they come with way too much baggage!

I totally agree that no one individual should be in charge.... which is why I proposed a transitional BOD with at least 12 equal members made up of as large of cross section as possible.

As for baggage I know of very few experienced canyoneers that don't come with a load of baggage. The idea behind a wide and varied BOD is everyone's baggage and special interest gets deluted....

:cool2:

FYI: If someone with less baggage wants to also submitted my plan or something similar to it I have no issues with that. I consider the more plans submit by more people to be a good thing.

:nod:

[spinesnaper]

Somethings wrong on the Internet- boy ain't that the truth.

I get the need for change. Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

[ratagonia]

I totally agree that no one individual should be in charge.... which is why I proposed a transitional BOD with at least 12 equal members made up of as large of cross section as possible.

As for baggage I know of very few experienced canyoneers that don't come with a load of baggage. The idea behind a wide and varied BOD is everyone's baggage and special interest gets deluted....

:cool2:

FYI: If someone with less baggage wants to also submitted my plan or something similar to it I have no issues with that. I consider the more plans submit by more people to be a good thing.

:nod:

I think you missed out on RC's strategy meeting, Ice...

A. Say you will turn the ACA over to the person or plan that gets the most votes.

B. Ask people to submit plans.

C. Lots of people submit plans.

D. One of the acolytes submits a plan called "retain Rich".

E. With lots of plans, the plan "Retain Rich" gets the most votes.

F. Rich turns the ACA over to... himself!

Jes' Sayin'...

Tom :moses:

[restrac2000]

Are we still on this discussion? Seriously, don't you people have anything better to do, like actually going Canyoneering?!!!

This seems to be more about dislike for individuals than creating an organization that could benefit a community that will always be fractured.

If it's about the stupid name, I would suggest the following:

OAC -Organization of American Canyoneers
ACA - American Canyoning Association
USCA - US Canyoneering Association
AAC - American Association of Canyoneers
GAR - Group of American Rappellers
NPACA - Non Profit American Canyoneering Association

If you are intent on creating an organization that 'speaks' for all canyoneers, I would suggest Shane, Tom, Phil, etc not set it up; they come with way too much baggage!

K (Actually out there doing it!)

A) I was one of the first to publicly state I should not be a BOD member or leader of the possible new organization. 100% agreement. I don't believe the demolition crew is necessarily the best group to construct the new building. Especially politically. I knew that I might tarnish my name and limit my options in the future with the public approach I have taken. I will simply be happy to pay my dues and vote on occassion.

B) Don't appreciate the insult about "better things to do" but its no big deal. I'll give you a primer on me: I value the time it takes to deal with these community issues almost as much as canyoneering; I don't feel the need to go canyoneering every possible opportunity; I don't have the financial means to do so; I in particular have 2 specific, debilitating health issues preventing my ability or desire to get outside as much right now. Hope that clears up how I value and operate.

C) See Tom's or OldNo7 summary of the "its just about a name" statement or petty personality differences. Its not and they have stated my ideas better and more precisely than I have.

Enjoy getting out there and "doing it".

Phillip

[restrac2000]

=ratagonia;475391

While we are resurrecting things, I might re-vivify the ZCC (with a more national name), to lead the charge on access issues. I think the community is large enough now that the ZCC/CAC could be more than a one-man-show-with-supporters.

Tom

Let me know if/when that happens. I will have a check ready. Also, willing to help behind the scenes with research. There are some great studies and documented cases to help pressure agencies to increase stakeholder participation.

I think having a "CAC" would at a minimum be a great internet site to funnel people interested in educating themselves. I still go to the old ZCC site on occasion for that purpose.

Phillip

[Iceaxe]

Hey, the main reason I submitted a proposal was to get people thinking and make sure there was at least one other option on the ballot other then "Elect Rich Dictator".

If there is actually a fair and open election it will be interesting to watch it play out.... even with a fair and open election the deck is stacked heavily in Rich's favor as you know the election will be held on the ACA website. It would be appropriate for someone other then Rich to hold the keys to the ballot box.

[restrac2000]

For those interested in the structure of outdoor associations I will provide links below. These two are the ones the ACA admits (historically and recently) modeling themselves after. The organizations are transparent about their governance, bylaws and meetings (provide minutes). They differ in specifics but both have tenure limits and "member" elections.

http://www.caves.org/info/
http://amga.com/about/index.php

The ACA mentions The Arizona Mountaineering Club as another model. Much harder to find information but trends can be observed in the Newsletter. The do also have a rotating Board and Officers.

http://www.amcaz.org/

Phillip

[tanya]

This seems to be more about dislike for individuals than creating an organization that could benefit a community that will always be fractured.




Well said Kip!

But sometimes an outsider is actually the best because we all tend to become biased. A paid outsider, a business man that does not canyoneer might be the solution. Someone that can see all sides and be fair to all and has no personal agenda other than build the organization.:stud:

When voting we would all vote for those we like, canyoneer with and who think like us, support us and who don't dislike us for sure! That would just make the organization again lopsided. Towns often hire outside people to run their chambers just for this reason. Many here run their own business, otherwise we probably would not have time to sit on the net all day, but it takes more than having time, knowledge and loving canyoneering to operate something that belongs to the people.

[The Good Cop]

Tom, I would be thrilled to see you develop this and to personally learn from & contribute to it.

[restrac2000]

From the Utah Nonprofit Association website:

"The purpose of a nonprofit is to serve the community, not a limited number of individuals. This is one reason that the government requires nonprofits to have a volunteer board of directors. Volunteer directors promote community ownership of the organization."

'In terms of operations, nonprofit organizations should be treated as a business with business interests and needs. However, because of the nature of their missions, nonprofits should never forget that they enjoy the benefits of government subsidy."

Phillip

[restrac2000]

From the Nevada Attorney General:
(http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/manuals/Guide%20to%20NonProfits.pdf)

1) "Beware of the one person show. That is, if one or two directors dominate the board and the organization's activities, do not relax and assume everything is running smoothly. "Nonmanagement" is the quickest route toward trouble. Also, do not allow staff to exercise undue control over the board. Be aware of, and informed about, every major action taken by the organization. The buck stops with you."

2) "Written minutes should be taken at every board meeting. Minutes must accurately record the votes cast and identify the names of those in the minority on any question. Minutes should be signed, circulated to the board members for review, and presented for approval."

3) "Avoid Detrimental Conflicts of Interest. A red flag should fly when board members are asked to approve a contract or transaction with a director, a director's family member, or a business in which a director has a financial interest. Before voting on the transaction, the interested board member should fully disclose his or her financial interest to the entire board. The board should only approve the transaction if it is clearly in the best interests of the nonprofit organization. As a further precaution, the interested director should abstain from discussion of, and voting on, the matter."

[Felicia]

:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire:

[CLE]

My opinion on all this:

1) We would all be happier if we spent more time enjoying canyons and less time throwing mud on the Internet.

2) I may be in the minority here, but I am grateful to Rich for what he has done for canyoneering. I feel his efforts are a net plus to our community. I know I have learned a lot from him.

[ratagonia]

My opinion on all this:

1) We would all be happier if we spent more time enjoying canyons and less time throwing mud on the Internet.

2) I may be in the minority here, but I am grateful to Rich for what he has done for canyoneering. I feel his efforts are a net plus to our community. I know I have learned a lot from him.

Yes. so...

Rich has done a lot for the Canyoneering Community.

But you forgot point #3.

He has perpetrated a fraud, mislead people, alienated friends etc. Even recently, he declared he was going to turn the ACA over to someone who was interested in continuing it as a true Association, and then he did something else. Another fraud.

For some, #3 is forgivable. For some others, maybe not.

But then again... THIS thread is actually about a potential American Canyon Guides Association, and neither a place for Rich-Bashing nor Rich-Apologizing.

Tom

[ratagonia]

From the Nevada Attorney General:
(http://ag.state.nv.us/publications/manuals/Guide%20to%20NonProfits.pdf)

1) "Beware of the one person show. That is, if one or two directors dominate the board and the organization's activities, do not relax and assume everything is running smoothly. "Nonmanagement" is the quickest route toward trouble. Also, do not allow staff to exercise undue control over the board. Be aware of, and informed about, every major action taken by the organization. The buck stops with you."

2) "Written minutes should be taken at every board meeting. Minutes must accurately record the votes cast and identify the names of those in the minority on any question. Minutes should be signed, circulated to the board members for review, and presented for approval."

3) "Avoid Detrimental Conflicts of Interest. A red flag should fly when board members are asked to approve a contract or transaction with a director, a director's family member, or a business in which a director has a financial interest. Before voting on the transaction, the interested board member should fully disclose his or her financial interest to the entire board. The board should only approve the transaction if it is clearly in the best interests of the nonprofit organization. As a further precaution, the interested director should abstain from discussion of, and voting on, the matter."

I assume Phillip, you are pointing this out as things the new ACGA needs to avoid.

Tom

[rcwild]

Rich has done a lot for the Canyoneering Community.

But you forgot point #3.

He has perpetrated a fraud, mislead people, alienated friends etc. Even recently, he declared he was going to turn the ACA over to someone who was interested in continuing it as a true Association, and then he did something else. Another fraud.

For some, #3 is forgivable. For some others, maybe not.

But then again... THIS thread is actually about a potential American Canyon Guides Association, and neither a place for Rich-Bashing nor Rich-Apologizing.

Fraud? Really? The only fraud being perpetuated is this thread and the bogus information presented herein. This thread started when Shane cut and pasted a notice from the ACA site. I came here willing to keep Bogleyites informed about progress with the ACGA. One of the moderators here should show some integrity and split the thread. Anything not related to the ACGA can go into a thread titled "Rich Carlson Sucks".

It has been suggested to me that I should just ignore this and let it die a natural death because the majority of people who might read it are smart enough to recognize facts from "mis-truths" and "mis-rememberances" based on personal vendettas. I believe that is true.

I did one thing wrong; I inadvertently let the ACA corporate filing expire because notices were sent to an old PO box. Even now, that would be simple to fix if I chose to do so. The rest of what has been written about the ACA not being a REAL association is utter nonsense. I started the association. I chose how it was structured. I chose what the focus of the association would be -- education and training. I chose NOT to get involved with the political crap. It was a good decision. Comments about the ACA being run by one individual imply that Dave Black, Charly Oliver, Sonny Lawrence and dozens of others never played roles in any decisions ever made. Totally bogus.

I could have come on and countered every false statement made, but I know from experience that doing so would only perpetuate the pissing match. It has managed to run 14 pages without my participation. If anyone has questions, they are welcome to contact me. I won't tell you my side of the stories, but I will be happy to put you in touch with a number of other people who were involved and have actual facts. You can decide for yourself.

Did I change my mind about putting a decision about the future to a vote? Yes, when a number of people pointed out to me that such a vote would likely involve a significant number of fraudulent votes by people more concerned about their personal agendas than what is best for the community. Have I changed my mind about turning the ACA over to someone who is interested in it as a vehicle to pursue issues? No. Have a little patience and stay tuned.

[restrac2000]

Fraud? Really? The only fraud being perpetuated is this thread and the bogus information presented herein. This thread started when Shane cut and pasted a notice from the ACA site. I came here willing to keep Bogleyites informed about progress with the ACGA. One of the moderators here should show some integrity and split the thread. Anything not related to the ACGA can go into a thread titled "Rich Carlson Sucks".

Moderator integrity is one of the most ironic statements you have made thus far, Rich. Few people share your delete 'em, move 'em, rename it and/or degrade them philosophy in regards to forums. Maybe if your own behavior was consistent with your own forum rules I could take that more seriously.



I did one thing wrong; I inadvertently let the ACA corporate filing expire because notices were sent to an old PO box. Even now, that would be simple to fix if I chose to do so. The rest of what has been written about the ACA not being a REAL association is utter nonsense. I started the association. I chose how it was structured. I chose what the focus of the association would be -- education and training. I chose NOT to get involved with the political crap. It was a good decision. Comments about the ACA being run by one individual imply that Dave Black, Charly Oliver, Sonny Lawrence and dozens of others never played roles in any decisions ever made. Totally bogus.

That is bogus. I have no doubt that those folks have influenced the ACA in the past and present. Your domineering behavior isn't mutually exclusive with allowing a few select people to influence some of the ACAs behavior. But as you have mentioned yourself several times now, you have absolute control over the outcomes in the end. A BOD, transparent bylaws and practices, and an engaged membership helps alleviate that problem. I have posted many links and protocols from 2 relevant states, Utah and Nevada, that challenge your practices with the ACA. You have the privilege to act however you choose but that does not make it ethical or proper for an "association". Wether you like it or not there are well established "standards" of operation for "non-profits" and "associations" to be judged by; such metrics may not be the law but they do allow us to judge the ACA as a social "fraud". Neither non-profits nor associations are solely judged by the extremely flexible Nevada state regulations that you intentionally chose to affiliate yourself with.


I won't tell you my side of the stories, but I will be happy to put you in touch with a number of other people who were involved and have actual facts. You can decide for yourself.

What is your limited definition of fact? What you agree with? What you want others to perceive about the ACA and your past actions? 3 people have contributed to this thread who were "involved and have actual facts". Our observations contradict the story you have told and the narrow myth of the ACA you try to protect and perpetuate.


Did I change my mind about putting a decision about the future to a vote? Yes, when a number of people pointed out to me that such a vote would likely involve a significant number of fraudulent votes by people more concerned about their personal agendas than what is best for the community. Have I changed my mind about turning the ACA over to someone who is interested in it as a vehicle to pursue issues? No. Have a little patience and stay tuned.

How do you judge what is "best" for the community, Rich. This has been a historic problem with the ACA. Internet polls? The currently loyal followers of Rich's vision of the ACA that you talk to on a regular basis? Both are heavily biased. How many times have you offered up a real vote?

"Have a little patience"? You have lost the trust of many folks who patiently waited for a decade for you to accept the greater responsibilities inherent with an organization like the ACA. Some of us patiently waited while you had multiple, similar internet breakdowns during that time. Some of us foolishly waited despite you lack of follow-through and integrity in public statements like the one you made on Oct. 3rd. At some point you lose that trust, Rich. When are you going to have the integrity and institutional honesty to follow through on your public statements? We didn't ask you to put the ACA up for public auction, but you willfully offered it in such a manner. Some of us are still hoping you can follow through with some form of public offering and then let the members and community decide what is best for them.

Phillip