Jump to content

OFSC BOG Decision


02Sled

Recommended Posts

 

 

On July 19, 2018, the OFSC Board of Governors held an unscheduled meeting via conference call to discuss and vote on the MOTS district realignment plan.

The Board had previously set a deadline of May 31, 2018 for the realignment plan to be completed, however that deadline had passed without any of the district mergers or District 14 club reassignments being acted upon. Consequently, the Board had to decide on how to proceed next.

By a majority vote:

"The Board approves the More on the Snow realignment plan be deferred indefinitely, and therefore maintain the current board status of 16 Districts".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Decided to be “...Deferred indefinitely..”  That is going to give those opposed some incentive to keep opposing the change and certainly deflate those who see the need for a different approach.

 

To make this decision less than 2 months before the AGM sounds like a change in course may be in the works.

 

Surely some of those who are closer to the Governors will chime in on what the strategy will be going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The background to go back to 12 Districts is that there are big districts with about 5000 kms of trails and small ones with less then 900 kms. It was to make all the Districts about the same amount kms of trails. 

As example it happened in the past that every District received a new groomer so a if you compare a 900 kms District with a 5000 kms Districts it’s not fair. Same with applications for trail work subsidies , it happened that every District was allowed for only one application. Fair, I don’t think so.

Also with going back to 12 Districts could save money. Now there are Districts who have spend already money for promoting the new District name what’s now maybe a waste of money....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Decided to be “...Deferred indefinitely..”  That is going to give those opposed some incentive to keep opposing the change and certainly deflate those who see the need for a different approach.

 

To make this decision less than 2 months before the AGM sounds like a change in course may be in the works.

 

Surely some of those who are closer to the Governors will chime in on what the strategy will be going forward.

Seems like this is a change for the better. There was never a business case showing any advantage to go to 12.

 

The new Pres, 2nd VP and Executive Director will be a welcome change to the OFSC. Since the AGM is at Deerhurst I may see if I can go sit in being a Club Member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don’t like from this that some districts did “loose” some clubs to another District as example District 1 lost 2 clubs to District 6. Other Districts were rebellious and did nothing. Now the BOG let the Districts get away with doing nothing. Is that leadership? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doogirl69 said:

Seems like this is a change for the better. There was never a business case showing any advantage to go to 12.

 

The new Pres, 2nd VP and Executive Director will be a welcome change to the OFSC. Since the AGM is at Deerhurst I may see if I can go sit in being a Club Member.

Certainly agree that “Deferring indefinitely” a reorganization that has already been implemented in some areas is troubling and is bound to create some ill will.

 

I thought they just advertised 4 positions for the Super District Managers.  Now what?

 

Maybe the anticipated cost savings are not sufficient to cover the $400,000 cost of the Managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Greggie said:

What I don’t like from this that some districts did “loose” some clubs to another District as example District 1 lost 2 clubs to District 6. Other Districts were rebellious and did nothing. Now the BOG let the Districts get away with doing nothing. Is that leadership? 

Yes it is

They are finally listening to the clubs and districts that realize that amalgamation is not the answer

In our case District 2 and 3, created a unmanageable area that was way to large to be run effectively. The distances werte too large and the variations in terrain did not lend itself to effective groomer distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greggie said:

What I don’t like from this that some districts did “loose” some clubs to another District as example District 1 lost 2 clubs to District 6. Other Districts were rebellious and did nothing. Now the BOG let the Districts get away with doing nothing. Is that leadership? 

OFSC is a business, don't doubt that for a second.... business changes direction and strategy as required. Managing and adapting through an ever evolving business environment IS LEADERSHIP. Simply following a previously set concept just because that was the right decision at that moment and may no longer be the right decision is NOT LEADERSHIP.... THAT WOULD BE A HERD OF SHEEP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigfish said:

Yes it is

They are finally listening to the clubs and districts that realize that amalgamation is not the answer

In our case District 2 and 3, created a unmanageable area that was way to large to be run effectively. The distances werte too large and the variations in terrain did not lend itself to effective groomer distribution.

Why can District 2 and 3 not go together? Too big area? Look at the area of District 1 or the northern Districts... Its more that the Districts don’t want to merge together...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

OFSC is a business, don't doubt that for a second.... business changes direction and strategy as required. Managing and adapting through an ever evolving business environment IS LEADERSHIP. Simply following a previously set concept just because that was the right decision at that moment and may no longer be the right decision is NOT LEADERSHIP.... THAT WOULD BE A HERD OF SHEEP.

Yes leadership is looking what need to get done to do the best for snowmobiling. If that is the case, it would be better that they reviewed the whole MOTS and look what makes sense and what not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bigfish said:

Yes it is

They are finally listening to the clubs and districts that realize that amalgamation is not the answer

In our case District 2 and 3, created a unmanageable area that was way to large to be run effectively. The distances werte too large and the variations in terrain did not lend itself to effective groomer distribution.

Have you ever traveled D12 in its current form.

1 example, meldrum bay to killarney would be would about a 6 hr drive on a good day.

Killarney to oniping would be 3 hrs min.

Club's down south are bitching about 1-2 hr drive.

To implement MOTS properly $$ need to be spent on technology such as video conferencing so nobody has to travel for meetings.

I'm sure 02sled could provide existing zero cost software solutions.

Supply every club with a tablet loaded with the software and bingo.

I'm sorry big fish, you are talking out your ass on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soup, it's not the distance for meetings that concern us, sure it could be done with video conferencing, if we have total reliable internet coverage, which we don't, but that is a minor issue.

Just because there are now districts that are too large to manage, why create more of them? Hell, why not make the whole province one district?

The issue is effective groomer utilization. With the scarcity of snow in the south,and the volume of riders, we need to be able to deploy groomers to the areas required  in a quick effective manner, which large districts do not lend themselves to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Greggie said:

Yes leadership is looking what need to get done to do the best for snowmobiling. If that is the case, it would be better that they reviewed the whole MOTS and look what makes sense and what not. 

Who said they aren't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bigfish said:

Soup, it's not the distance for meetings that concern us, sure it could be done with video conferencing, if we have total reliable internet coverage, which we don't, but that is a minor issue.

Just because there are now districts that are too large to manage, why create more of them? Hell, why not make the whole province one district?

The issue is effective groomer utilization. With the scarcity of snow in the south,and the volume of riders, we need to be able to deploy groomers to the areas required  in a quick effective manner, which large districts do not lend themselves to.

Okay... forget video conferencing.... that gives you a warm fuzzy when you can see the face of the person speaking. If there are documents to be reviewed distribute them by email in advance so everyone has an opportunity to retrieve them when convenient. Then just have a simple "old fashioned" conference call. Conference calls do have a charge associated but far less than the cost of people driving. They can participate in the meeting from the comfort of their recliner and look at their own copy of a document in front of them. For those with reliable internet there could be concerns about the individuals eating up some of the bandwidth that their internet plan allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 02Sled said:

Who said they aren't

Well, if you look at the first week of September deadline, it looks that they move in in full speed. The first week of September, all assets of the club paid by permit money need to get transferred to the District. Also all permit bank accounts, investments, shops and club houses. All registrations of snowmobiles, atv’s, side by side and so on need to shipped to the District. Yes the Ofsc is saying lately that all assets belong to the Ofsc but if you look at the assets of the Ofsc, they have no groomers and other assets in their book keeping. If there is a club at a District who don’t does this, the District will be not in good standing, no permit sales, grants and no groomer(s)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I see a thread about the inner workings of the ofsc all I can think is why does it have to be so complicated? What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2018 at 12:56 PM, Greggie said:

The background to go back to 12 Districts is that there are big districts with about 5000 kms of trails and small ones with less then 900 kms. It was to make all the Districts about the same amount kms of trails. 

As example it happened in the past that every District received a new groomer so a if you compare a 900 kms District with a 5000 kms Districts it’s not fair. Same with applications for trail work subsidies , it happened that every District was allowed for only one application. Fair, I don’t think so.

Also with going back to 12 Districts could save money. Now there are Districts who have spend already money for promoting the new District name what’s now maybe a waste of money....

 

 

Greg what proof is there that having all districts having the same amount of trail kms is the right thing to do ?   Look at the location of and the ridership of the previously proposed major mergers - districts 4/8,  7/10 and 2/3, all within 2 hours of the GTA in the heart of Ontario's cottage country and/or gateways to cottage country with a huge amount of permit buyers able to ride from home . 

 

IMO the amount of riders/permit buyers districts see is a far greater factor of equalizing operations than kms.   Our previous Excom idea of "each district gets one" was certainly a huge mistake and only done to buy votes for MOTS. Proper selection of where assets need to be to service the majority of ridership is paramount to insure permit buyers get their best bang for the buck, and yes that includes moving assets in seasons where warranted when snowfall dictates.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bigfish said:

Soup, it's not the distance for meetings that concern us, sure it could be done with video conferencing, if we have total reliable internet coverage, which we don't, but that is a minor issue.

Just because there are now districts that are too large to manage, why create more of them? Hell, why not make the whole province one district?

The issue is effective groomer utilization. With the scarcity of snow in the south,and the volume of riders, we need to be able to deploy groomers to the areas required  in a quick effective manner, which large districts do not lend themselves to.

Good groomer utilization didn't seem to be a problem in the Corridor Du Nord (approx. 250 miles across)this past winter. Even though the clubs were stretched to the limit for volunteers, they pulled it off in fine style. The MOTS  District Groomer control worked properly for the Polar Bear Riders when they had a groomer go down and needed a replacement to fill in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STP was the model used for the operations portion of mots.

STP has always used centralized grooming where no club owns a groomer but owns the trail.

For the most part the system works very well allowing assets to be moved quickly in the event a groomer goes down for a prolonged period during the season.

Sometimes a groomer won't be moved depending on traffic and conditions.

STP/D12 is a large geographic area with many waterbodies that cannot be crossed by groomers. 

Trust me by saying that when a machine  does go down it's not fix the groomer it groom my trails with whatever is available.

This I believe is the heart of what mots is all about, being able to groom all trails in the event of a failure of any machine in the system in a reasonable time frame.

I know there is all kinds of other crap that goes with mots like money, assets of the club besides groomers and including property.

I have heard that club's will no longer be able to have club houses, this I think is wrong in the sense that if the CH can be self sustaing or even profitable, why not have it.

If permit money needs too be injected to keep it afloat, let it sink.

I'm  still split in using fundraising money to support a CH.

If the CH is also the groomer repair facility the same rules apply for the CH portion only.

STP has an office/storage/repair building that could not ever be used as a CH.

 

There is so much of mots that makes sense that I hope the whole thing doesn't die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Poo Man said:

Every time I see a thread about the inner workings of the ofsc all I can think is why does it have to be so complicated? What am I missing?

Money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Why was it necessary for the BoG to have an “unscheduled meeting via conference call” for such a major piece of business?

Some agendas can get squashed very quickly, cant they?

 

Hear hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Doogirl69 said:

Save money and time?

 

Don't see a problem with that.

I don’t buy that.

 

The biggest item of the OFSC in the last 5 years gets dealt with by an “unscheduled meeting” of the Board of Governors.  What is going on if that needs to be done on an urgent basis and only 2 months before the AGM?

 

Is this a major change in thinking by the leadership and/or a response to Clubs and Districts that are refusing or reluctant to implement MOTS?

 

I honestly don’t know what Yukon means “some agendas can get squashed very quickly”, I’m missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

I don’t buy that.

 

The biggest item of the OFSC in the last 5 years gets dealt with by an “unscheduled meeting” of the Board of Governors.  What is going on if that needs to be done on an urgent basis and only 2 months before the AGM?

 

Is this a major change in thinking by the leadership and/or a response to Clubs and Districts that are refusing or reluctant to implement MOTS?

 

I honestly don’t know what Yukon means “some agendas can get squashed very quickly”, I’m missing something.

Your not really missing anything, the membership pushed back......  We have new leadership that will listen .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...