American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

Tom, this is good. I have perceived equal personal attacks on Rich as you state above against Phillip, but let me not protect the very, very good ACA product, that which Rich teaches, what which he has done for the community, or all things "Rich" in general. I will set that aside. I will set aside the legal definition (or lack thereof) of an "Association".

So let's continue. You speak rationally oh Emperor, my Emperor. Since I am not a part of the ACA or the direct history of the ACA, what was the first legal entity created that was "the ACA?" I must admit, I never cared what that entity was. I figured that if I wanted to join the club, I could. I was more concerned with the product and the face of the ACA, Rich Carlson, who never offended me. Of course I can't really think of anyone who offended me except this one girl in first grade who called me "strawberry freckle face". But I have since accepted my Opie-ness. (For you youngin's, find the Andy Griffith Show and watch it and you will know what I kinda looked like as a kid. :haha:) But i digress.....

Is it the name "Association" that troubles some of you and your definition of that word, or is it that the ACA evolved from a democratic entity to a nondemocratic entity or both? Or (as it seems with some of the more vocal out there) a deep hatred/betrayal/been dun lied to by..... :hair: Rich :hair:, that is so offensive? Are we confusing hatred for Rich and using the something like unto the "Straw man" fallacy? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument (Wiki is fun for all!). That is what it really seems like to many who have commented on this forum and on the Yahoo group. Is it the name that is so darn good that many will now vie for control?

And just for arguments sake, suppose Rich pulls the plug on the whole darn vote idea and offends the same people all over again. Would the next in line be therefore banned to the flatlands by all canyoneers? Would you give the next guys/gals a chance if Rich put them in place? Would you support a group who takes over the ACA simply because Rich gave/sold it to them and you didn't have a vote for something you didn't have a say in anyway?

I would frankly suggest that Rich rescind his internet vote offer for a bunch of reasons. I don't know much about these new fangled computers and such, but internet ballot box stuffing wouldn't seem to be too hard for these bright young computer savvy kids now would it? I don't think any "voted" in idea or group would hold any more legitimacy than an appointed fresh face. Future conduct and product will either keep and improve the ACA or it will die. Probably any result, appointed or voted, will alienate a bunch of people. Hopefully, whatever happens, people will be patient and positive.

But hey, as I have said all along, Rich can do what he wants to do. If it is a vote he wants, vote away. I will send my one in if I have a vote because I will play fair and vote only once. If he chooses his successor(s) then I will begin with a positive attitude and wait and see how it goes, and I hope it goes well.

---

Your Honor -

Let the record show that the witness was asked a DIRECT QUESTION, which he very carefully evaded, heading off into the hinterlands of discussion. Perhaps the gentleman would be so kind as to answer the question FIRST, before giving testimony on new material. I ask you again, sir:

How

Is

My

Shade-Tree

Lawyering

Coming

Along?

:moses:



:haha:

(Perhaps a more germane response will make it out of my keyboard in the morning...)

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...1c4d970d-400wi

:lol8: :lol8: :toofunny:

I love that little comic strip...:lol8:

:mrgreen:

:roflol:

Tom, my questions of the history of the ACA were meant as, well, questions. I was trying to understand the evolution of the ACA. Some have said that Rich's version is tainted. So I asked trying to understand the venom just a little bit better to rationally discuss the "issues". I was actually going to reread all the posts to figure out just why I am so darn dumb. BUT.....

Forget all that. I have had a good nights rest, got up early and played old man basketball (a little running and a lot of sweating) and had a fresh chocolatey Dunford donut. Boy, i am ready to roll. :haha: So here goes.

Assuming arguendo (that right there makes the whole undergrad degree worth it :haha:) that you are right. For the sake of argument, let's agree that Rich perpetrated a fraud on the community, that he lied, that he is a cheat, that he misrepresented who he was and who the ACA was to third parties (BLM, Zion, etc. whoever). Let's assume that Rich is rude and hurt everyone's feelings and you are all justified in feeling hurt and Rich needs to go. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Rich is bad, real bad, yea even the spawn of Satan! Let's assume that Rich slithers off into a hole somewhere and is never to be seen again. Let's assume that I am wrong and you are right. Let's agree to all of that for now. (Did I cover all the gripes? If not let's agree that I did that too.)

Now, what to do with the ACA. Will you give the new entity, whatever it may be (for profit, non profit, a true association, a money grubbin' corporation) a chance to succeed and earn your trust? Would you participate on an advisory board or board of directors or as a consultant?

Will you give the new person(s) a chance even if they are appointed by Rich? Will you give the new person(s) a chance if they are voted in and you don't like them?

Let's start there for now. Just to keep the discussion going and productive.

""

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Card

... had a fresh chocolatey Dunford donut. Boy, i am ready to roll. :haha: So here goes.

Assuming arguendo ... (lots of stuff)

Now, what to do with the ACA. Will you give the new entity, whatever it may be (for profit, non profit, a true association, a money grubbin' corporation) a chance to succeed and earn your trust? Would you participate on an advisory board or board of directors or as a consultant?

Will you give the new person(s) a chance even if they are appointed by Rich? Will you give the new person(s) a chance if they are voted in and you don't like them?

Let's start there for now. Just to keep the discussion going and productive.

---

Mmmmmmmm. Fresh chocolatey Dunford donut... Hmmm, wonder if they have those in Kanab, but not fresh... 20 minute drive...

Yes, I stand ready to serve, put energy and support with enthusiasm the new ACA, pretty much whomever the new leader/leaders are.

Since Rich has a lot of venom for me, I see little point in me being involved in the Junta, uh, I mean Transitional Board of Directors.

I would, however, not be interested in leading the charge - just too many things on my plate that I am not doing already.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bshwakr

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!)

---

It's raining.

I agree. The org would be better led by folks with less baggage.

Tom

""

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bshwakr

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bshwakr

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

Quote:

---

=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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bshwakr

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.

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