American Canyon Guides Association ACGA

[Felicia]

but until then I am participating in the most powerful way I can ... dissent. Until I am corrected—that Rich is benefiting from unethical practices—to a reasonable manner than I am not likely to stop asking the hard questions.

Phillip

I'm OK with dissent.

Felicia

[Iceaxe]

I will be happy to answer any question you or any other mature, mannered person would care to ask about the ACGA or the ACA. I don't believe any of the ACGA Board Members participate in any forums other than the ACA forum. I came to this forum to make sure everyone who cares knows what is happening.

Rich,

I appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed. My only trepidation at the moment is if the ACGA is really separate from the ACA or if the Kool-Aid has just been repackaged as "Country Time" with a "New and Improved" label attached.

My concern stems from the fact that the ACGA board is made up completely of ACA cohorts. I also noticed that the guides that do participate and support the various canyoneering forums are noticeably absent from the board.

When will the ACGA actually cut the apron strings?

Thanks again for taking the time to keep us informed.

[restrac2000]

Rich, somebody did a lot of work to setup the site for ACGA - will the site be "turned over" at some point to ACGA? When? Phillip, would you want to professionally manage the site for ACGA?

Nope. I put in some time with the Pro Division years ago even after I had pretty much retired from being a guide. I will likely never guide again due to susceptibility to heat related illnesses and loss of vision.

On a more specific note, if the idea is that I shouldn't make comments unless I am willing to contribute time than you are engaging in an extremely problematic logical fallacy. Ideas aren't validated in that manner. Rich often uses that form of argument to discredit his dissenters and it fails every time.

I will assume you were being genuinely curious. Not everyone, but many of the dissenting voices on this issues have donated time in the past.

Philip

[rcwild]

Question to Rich: Will all ACGA leadership be required to be subject matter experts? If so, how big of a pool is there to draw from? If not, what is the board looking for?

We borrowed heavily from the AMGA bylaws for the ACGA. The bylaws stipulate that up to 1/3 of the board can be made up of Professional Directors, meaning lawyers, accountants, business experts, etc. who can contribute in ways other than technically. The other 2/3 of the board must be members.

[rcwild]

Also Rich, for those that do not want to converse with you, who would be an alternate contact person at this time?

Board members are listed in Shane's first post in this thread.

[rcwild]

Rich, somebody did a lot of work to setup the site for ACGA - will the site be "turned over" at some point to ACGA? When?

I created the site with WordPress. Very easy to use. I know of at least one board member who is familiar with WordPress. He or someone else can start doing the work anytime they want.

The challenge in starting any organization is finding people with time available who are willing to donate it or finding money to pay someone. It will be a challenge for the ACGA until it starts generating revenue.

[ratagonia]

Felicia, I will be happy to answer any question you or any other mature, mannered person would care to ask about the ACGA or the ACA. I don't believe any of the ACGA Board Members participate in any forums other than the ACA forum. I came to this forum to make sure everyone who cares knows what is happening.

No true Scotsman... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Tom

[Felicia]

Nope.

I will assume you were being genuinely curious. Not everyone, but many of the dissenting voices on this issues have donated time in the past.

Philip

Phillip, I see your point. My question was one of curiosity with no intended malice.

Felicia

[rcwild]

Rich,

I appreciate you taking the time to keep us informed. My only trepidation at the moment is if the ACGA is really separate from the ACA or if the Kool-Aid has just been repackaged as "Country Time" with a "New and Improved" label attached.

My concern stems from the fact that the ACGA board is made up completely of ACA cohorts. I also noticed that the guides that do participate and support the various canyoneering forums are noticeably absent from the board.

When will the ACGA actually cut the apron strings?

Thanks again for taking the time to keep us informed.

The ACGA logo was created by a guide from Guadalajara Mexico who happens to be a graphic artist. He saw the announcement about the ACGA and took the initiative to design the logo. It looks very similar to the ACA logo. When we saw it, the first question we had was whether or not the two organizations should appear to be affiliated. That question remains unanswered.

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

All of the current ACA guides in the U.S. have been keeping up with what is happening with the ACGA. Some of them were quite content with the way things were and encouraged me to ignore the negative comments. Most understand why I wanted the split and why I ultimately want to move away from the professional side altogether. I have a lot of other irons in the fire.

There is also a question pending about whether or not the ACGA will start an accreditation program. I am advising against it. The AMGA struggled with this question for many years. The AMGA's primary goal is to certify individuals based on their technical competence. An accreditation program allows a program to receive a credential even if it does not employ guides who possess the desired level of technical competence. But once an accreditation program starts it is virtually possible to eliminate.

The ACA's accreditation program was not my idea. It was Dave Black's. It came at a time when the ACA was teaching all of its courses directly. 3-day courses for $195 to $295. Virtually every course was selling out and Dave, Charly and I could not keep up. The accreditation program was intended to get guide services involved who would teach the ACA curriculum. Over time, the ACA stopped teaching courses directly.

I already explained in a previous thread that the companies that are currently accredited by the ACA want their accreditation to continue. The ACA will continue as a "virtual" entity, providing the forums, meetup group and recommended curriculum, but it will not certify professional guides or instructors.

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?

[restrac2000]

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?

Because it still leaves the ACA as the root organization and you as the primary individual of influence. No doubt that will change over time but that could be a very long time, especially with a continued role as technical advisor. The foundational period of an organization helps define how broad its membership will be over time.

There must be a handful of non-ACA folks over the years that you didn't "influence" that can fill in the board.

The board will undoubtedly have strong loyalty to the ACA curriculum if there is not outside influence. It is likely that the ACGA will maintain the same biases as the ACA if new blood isn't brought in.

Accreditation: This is still something fundamentally wrong (unethical as a business) with one business owner intentionally trying to control the curriculum and standards. It deflects authority away from the ACGA by design. If you have such concerns about accreditation in general than why not just abandon the program? It inherently creates conflict with the role of a professional association. You must recognize that inherent tension you will be fostering? Which will be the source of canyoneering authority, the ACGA or the Rich's ACA club?

I assume you recognize this because the ACGA website praises the ACA for it source of knowledge and authority. The ACA is not isolating itself as a personal business, it is further integrating itself into the new professional association.

Phillip

[Scott Card]

[rcwild]

Fun stuff, eh Scott?

[Iceaxe]

Why would you be surprised by the ACGA board being made up of ACA guides?

Will a connection continue between the ACA and the ACGA? Of course. Why not?

I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

[rcwild]

I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

I guess it might seem strange to some that an organization is being formed and the people involved are the ones who care the most about it. Go figure.

[Felicia]

I guess it might seem strange to some that an organization is being formed and the people involved are the ones who care the most about it. Go figure.

Rich, in fairness (and recognizing the foundational work), the ACGA was "announced" to the "rest of us". Correct?

[Scott Card]

Fun stuff, eh Scott?

I didn't want to get into this again. The Yahoo group thread on this subject was simply mind numbing. But dang it, someone is wrong on the internet!

I will say, no one enjoys a good discussion more than me but when it quickly evolves EVERY TIME to ad hominem ad nausium, then I do the face palm. Seriously, if someone is not happy with a company, an organization, an owner, the by-laws, the "association", the history.... the what ever.... go start a competitor, do your own thing, get your own company! But for the love.... just stop whining. Rich, dood, what did you do, hide a body? father a child? befriend a commie? tinkle in someone's Gatoraid? I swear.... folks are now worrying about your influence. Heck, you don't even have to be present anymore! (The force is strong with you, old Jedi)

The ACA is a company. It has people (or person -- it doesn't matter) who provide a product. If you don't own the company, tough. Start your own. Am I missing something here? What am I missing? What is so darn scary about Rich? He is a man (and apparently the myth and the legend AND "the influence" )

Ya got something better than the ACA training? Anyone? If you do, please, oh please, oh please start a new company. Call it an association or what ever you want to call it. If the product is good, I will pay attention. I regret that I have never been able to participate in ACA training due to schedule, family, etc. The product I have seen indirectly is really good and people i trust speak very highly of the product, and Rich for that matter.

And for the record, I am not a member of the ACA. I have met Rich in passing two times and I was asked by Spidey and Clark to help them do a test where Rich was there as an advisor. Rich and Clark and Spidey and I as well as a couple of others went to lunch one day of the test. That is all the interaction I have had with the famous and now transcendent Rich Carlson.

And so, back to our regularly scheduled

[Scott Card]

Rich, in fairness (and recognizing the foundational work), the ACGA was "announced" to the "rest of us". Correct?

Is this a problem? If there are other guides who what to organize, by golly, let them organize! Perhaps Rick Green should have announced it. For some reason that escapes me, that would have been better?

[Scott Card]

I'm not surprised to see ACA guides on the BOD... I'm surprised at seeing ONLY ACA guides that are currently in good standing with the ACA on the ACGA BOD.

Most successful organizations are made up of a varied BOD. Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

All this does is raise a question of legitimacy in your mind. Again, guides or non-guides are welcome to start their own group. This really all seems to be a Rich bashing thing.

I really need to spend some time with Rich so I can get offended.

[ratagonia]

Even an emperor needs someone around to point out he is wearing no clothes.

How did you know that???

[restrac2000]

I think the only ad hominem attacks come, in relation to my interaction, from Rich.

I fully understand that you don't find this discussion important. That is fine. I don't believe the way you judge the value of the content of the dialog actually is a fair summation. Plain and simple. If Rich had just run a "company" for years it wouldn't matter. But he didn't. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing (best metaphor I can come up with; though I don't think Rich intentionally meant harm, I just think he struggles to design businesses that avoid ethical problems.) And once again, the simplistic idea that its a business and let him run it.....no substance. The only element I read from your interaction is boredom with the content, i.e. no meaningful analysis or contribution. Let me know if I am wrong. Have you dealt with the structural problems presented thus far? Do you understand the ethical problems of an business disguised as an association led to unfair market advantages? Have you ever involved yourself in professional associations, their literature, bylaws, etc?

Rich provides a great product. Never denied that. Rich operates a questionable business model which has made some of us a little more invested in certain outcomes. Rich by his own marketing material has tried to influence the direction of the canyoneering community for 15 years. Occasionally some us fund value in critiquing the business practices of the "premier" organization in the country.

Don't feel like we have much to contribute with each other, Scott. Could be wrong. I guess I see a few more options than starting my own company (which is going to happen). I see a benefit in challenging Rich to make professional changes. I see the social benefit either to those changes or the devaluing of his companies name from legitimate complaints.

Phillip