OFSC BOG Decision

[signfan]

On 7/26/2018 at 7:11 AM, 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.

 

This comment is completely offside.  If anything this is the biggest inefficiency that merging district 2 and 3 could have solved.  In my view a huge lost opportunity.  I used to be involved with a club from Bancroft and now have been involved helping dist 3.  You can clearly see the traffic move across the boundary of these two districts depending on the weather.  When there was no snow south of Peterborough Bancroft got slammed with traffic (Riders from Port Perry, Oshawa, Peterborough and Believille).  Once it snowed in the south the traffics levels in the north dropped back some as a lot of riders stayed home and rode their home trail system.  With the MOTS philosophy of reducing fleet numbers doesn't it make sense for a few of the groomers to do the same thing following the traffic?  Instead of both the clubs in the south and in the north both keeping larger fleets to deal with the peak times.  This is where you could conceivably cut some capital costs.  Problem is it would involve clubs having to share across borders.  Not saying we strip every groomer out of any one area at anytime.  I realise the weather can change on a whim.  But the fleet numbers could drop some with some proper pre-season planning that laid out plan A, B and C which was a different schedule based on district snow cover.  With two districts we will see fleet reduction regardless to make the capital acquisition numbers work which will mean less equipment in both areas.  This means not enough equipment when it is needed to deal with heavy traffic.  Despite having less equipment the equipment utilization numbers won't be where they should be on the southern units when we get a bad winter with 4 weeks of grooming.  At the end of the day the loser in this missed opportunity is the riders as the grooming will not be as good as it could be.

 

In my view this has been fought in district 3 because there is a few on the board that won't accept change.  I heard that many were afraid that dist 2 would take all the money north.  Or that the dist 3 board wouldn't be listened too.  Fact is there was more clubs in the amalgamation from dist 3 than there was from dist 2.  Dist 3 had the majority say in a new amalgamated district.  There should be an uproar at AGM this year in my view.  The entire membership as a whole voted in MOTS and it was the BOG's job to implement it.  What is the point in having a vote at AGM if the decision will just be upturned 10 months later by a newly elected BOG because they are listening to a select group of complainers.  The membership should go back to AGM this year pissed off and send a clear msg to the BOG to put this process back on track.  There is nothing unmanageable with the newly planned districts.  There is also nothing unique about dist 3 that would prevent this amalgamation from being a success when comparing it to dist 1 or 5 which manage their size and complexity quite well.

 

 

[Doogirl69]

7 minutes ago, signfan said:

 

This comment is completely offside.  If anything this is the biggest inefficiency that merging district 2 and 3 could have solved.  In my view a huge lost opportunity.  I used to be involved with a club from Bancroft and now have been involved helping dist 3.  You can clearly see the traffic move across the boundary of these two districts depending on the weather.  When there was no snow south of Peterborough Bancroft got slammed with traffic (Riders from Port Perry, Oshawa, Peterborough and Believille).  Once it snowed in the south the traffics levels in the north dropped back some as a lot of riders stayed home and rode their home trail system.  With the MOTS philosophy of reducing fleet numbers doesn't it make sense for a few of the groomers to do the same thing following the traffic?  Instead of both the clubs in the south and in the north both keeping larger fleets to deal with the peak times.  This is where you could conceivably cut some capital costs.  Problem is it would involve clubs having to share across borders.  Not saying we strip every groomer out of any one area at anytime.  I realise the weather can change on a whim.  But the fleet numbers could drop some with some proper pre-season planning that laid out plan A, B and C which was a different schedule based on district snow cover.  With two districts we will see fleet reduction regardless to make the capital acquisition numbers work which will mean less equipment in both areas.  This means not enough equipment when it is needed to deal with heavy traffic.  Despite having less equipment the equipment utilization numbers won't be where they should be on the southern units when we get a bad winter with 4 weeks of grooming.  At the end of the day the loser in this missed opportunity is the riders as the grooming will not be as good as it could be.

 

In my view this has been fought in district 3 because there is a few on the board that won't accept change.  I heard that many were afraid that dist 2 would take all the money north.  Or that the dist 3 board wouldn't be listened too.  Fact is there was more clubs in the amalgamation from dist 3 than there was from dist 2.  Dist 3 had the majority say in a new amalgamated district.  There should be an uproar at AGM this year in my view.  The entire membership as a whole voted in MOTS and it was the BOG's job to implement it.  What is the point in having a vote at AGM if the decision will just be upturned 10 months later by a newly elected BOG because they are listening to a select group of complainers.  The membership should go back to AGM this year pissed off and send a clear msg to the BOG to put this process back on track.  There is nothing unmanageable with the newly planned districts.  There is also nothing unique about dist 3 that would prevent this amalgamation from being a success when comparing it to dist 1 or 5 which manage their size and complexity quite well.

 

 

I always heard that the votes for MOTS and Framework got change were voted in or no one got a groomer. The question should be why did people vote for MOTS? Because the want MOTS or they want a new groomer?? Sounds like blackmail to me and I'm just a dumb blonde.

[Claire Voyant]

Have to say that I'm a little bit gobsmacked at the minimal discussion in this thread. Especially after all the brouhaha that MOTS generated in the first place. Personally I'm more curious about the impact that Doug Ford is going to have on the sport. Which club is going to be the first to take Doug out for a fam tour?? He gives me the impression that he's the kind of "if you wanna play, you gotta pay" type. He's going to tell us all to get over ourselves and just start charging more for permits. $350 sounds like a good round number to me. 

[Techdenis007]

1 hour ago, Claire Voyant said:

$350 sounds like a good round number to me. 

 

.... as long as you're buying ... I'll e-mail you my VIN's ... 

 

 

[Greggie]

On 7/27/2018 at 9:57 PM, Yukon Cornelious said:

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

So if 60% of the clubs vote for a change and 40% doesn’t want the change and they do nothing for the deadline, the BOG need to review the change and take the change away???

i think the BOG goes on a very slippery path to do this. Look at the September 6/7 deadline, there are lots of clubs who don’t want to give their assets to the District. So now need the BOG take it back so that the clubs can hold on the assets...

You call that listen to the membership??

[bbakernbay]

5 hours ago, Claire Voyant said:

Have to say that I'm a little bit gobsmacked at the minimal discussion in this thread. Especially after all the brouhaha that MOTS generated in the first place. Personally I'm more curious about the impact that Doug Ford is going to have on the sport. Which club is going to be the first to take Doug out for a fam tour?? He gives me the impression that he's the kind of "if you wanna play, you gotta pay" type. He's going to tell us all to get over ourselves and just start charging more for permits. $350 sounds like a good round number to me. 

Claire V.  Absolutely correct, very surprised about lack of informed comment on this critical subject.

 

As for the Ford government, I cannot see them putting any funding into snowmobiling.  They need to set some examples of finding the 6 Billion $$ and snowmobiling will surely be an easy hit.

 

The Trail Permit needs to go up at least $50, then $10 a year or more thereafter.  We are at a turning point and the Trail Permit cost is a small portion for most users although a price increase will certainly eliminate the low Kim’s users.

[zoso]

8 minutes ago, bbakernbay said:

Claire V.  Absolutely correct, very surprised about lack of informed comment on this critical subject.

 

As for the Ford government, I cannot see them putting any funding into snowmobiling.  They need to set some examples of finding the 6 Billion $$ and snowmobiling will surely be an easy hit.

Rightly so. Snowmobiling is enjoyed by a demographic that is very wealthy. There is zero need to give ten cents of government money to it or any other leisure activity enjoyed by the rich.

 

 

 

 

 

[Doogirl69]

2 hours ago, Greggie said:

So if 60% of the clubs vote for a change and 40% doesn’t want the change and they do nothing for the deadline, the BOG need to review the change and take the change away???

i think the BOG goes on a very slippery path to do this. Look at the September 6/7 deadline, there are lots of clubs who don’t want to give their assets to the District. So now need the BOG take it back so that the clubs can hold on the assets...

You call that listen to the membership??

The BOG is the voice of the clubs no? I keep hearing the last 2 votes went if you don't vote yes there will be no new groomers and that question was even asked. I doubt it was a 60/40 split on the vote. I'm sure the vote numbers are somewhere and you can find them.

I'm sure the governor's heard the disappointment of the votes and now that the dictatorship of the OFSC is gone the decisions of the BOG are the REAL wants and needs of the Clubs. 

[soupkids]

I've got to thinking on this matter again and the bog decision may simply to give more time.

I know here it has taken forever just to have STPA merged to STP., I'm not sure if it's even done yet.

It seems to have gotten stuck in the lawyers hands (big suprise)

[BoonerBP]

15 hours ago, Greggie said:

So if 60% of the clubs vote for a change and 40% doesn’t want the change and they do nothing for the deadline, the BOG need to review the change and take the change away???

i think the BOG goes on a very slippery path to do this. Look at the September 6/7 deadline, there are lots of clubs who don’t want to give their assets to the District. So now need the BOG take it back so that the clubs can hold on the assets...

You call that listen to the membership??

I dont think I would want to be one of the clubs that decides to wait and see as far as meeting the deadline , especiallly if you are a club with limited funds on hand.............. Read the full information release , MoTS is not going away

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

There is an old saying about doing things the same way and expecting different results. I think that if the board is thinking reversing direction it will be fatal for the OFSC. I was very pessimistic about MOTS in the beginning but from what I can see it is working here in district 5 thanks in no small part to the talent and drive of the club volunteers and especially those involved in the District functions. It's not perfected yet but I think it can be tailored to work throughout the province.

That said, I do believe we need the permit price to go up in order to cover continually higher costs if the OFSC is to survive.

JMHO

[Poo Man]

28 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

That said, I do believe we need the permit price to go up in order to cover continually higher costs if the OFSC is to survive.

JMHO

My only problem with this is I feel like the increase would just go towards increased bureaucracy. Seems like there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen, and they all like burning money.

[BoonerBP]

3 minutes ago, Poo Man said:

My only problem with this is I feel like the increase would just go towards increased bureaucracy. Seems like there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen, and they all like burning money.

16 district governors which are appointed by the clubs, 4 executive , appointed by the governors, all volunteers. 11-12 paid employees working under the direction of BoG , not sure where the burning of money is taking place

[Faceman]

I am thinking that the BOG made a wise decision to fall back and re-group. I do not think that FFC or MOTS is going away but I think there needs to be a better model or template ( lacking under previous) for these clubs/districts to move forward. And realistically permits do need to go up, even just to match rising fuel costs. 

 

[gator]

5 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

There is an old saying about doing things the same way and expecting different results. I think that if the board is thinking reversing direction it will be fatal for the OFSC. I was very pessimistic about MOTS in the beginning but from what I can see it is working here in district 5 thanks in no small part to the talent and drive of the club volunteers and especially those involved in the District functions. It's not perfected yet but I think it can be tailored to work throughout the province.

That said, I do believe we need the permit price to go up in order to cover continually higher costs if the OFSC is to survive.

JMHO

I don't think there is any chance that the major components of MOTS will be reversed. The decision to put the merger of some districts on hold will have very little effect on MOTS. Very little thought was done on the original mergers. There was no business case developed that would show any cost savings from the mergers or potential costs of such mergers. Hopefully in the future the proper work will be done to clearly demonstrate why such a path is warranted.

[Doogirl69]

2 hours ago, gator said:

I don't think there is any chance that the major components of MOTS will be reversed. The decision to put the merger of some districts on hold will have very little effect on MOTS. Very little thought was done on the original mergers. There was no business case developed that would show any cost savings from the mergers or potential costs of such mergers. Hopefully in the future the proper work will be done to clearly demonstrate why such a path is warranted.

Correct, MOTS and FFC are not changed by the last decision. I read that only the district realignment is being deferred. Nothing there says anything about the rest of MOTS and the FFC. Contact your governor and get the right info. Miss-information can be dangerous on social media. 

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

1 hour ago, Doogirl69 said:

Correct, MOTS and FFC are not changed by the last decision. I read that only the district realignment is being deferred. Nothing there says anything about the rest of MOTS and the FFC. Contact your governor and get the right info. Miss-information can be dangerous on social media. 

No misinformation given if you read my post correctly.

[02Sled]

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, bbakernbay said:

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

Your problem with a conference call is????  Why do they need to be face to face? Business does conference calls and video conferencing all the time. We used to have a weekly conference call meeting that included people from Europe, Asia, Canada and the US.

[02Sled]

17 hours ago, soupkids said:

I've got to thinking on this matter again and the bog decision may simply to give more time.

I know here it has taken forever just to have STPA merged to STP., I'm not sure if it's even done yet.

It seems to have gotten stuck in the lawyers hands (big suprise)

You could be right... the complexities of merging districts could be significant enough that the BOG have heard... not enough time to make this happen... we need an extension but can't set a realistic timeline without more consideration of the situation.

[bbakernbay]

35 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

Your problem with a conference call is????  Why do they need to be face to face? Business does conference calls and video conferencing all the time. We used to have a weekly conference call meeting that included people from Europe, Asia, Canada and the US.

No problem with conference call but having the Board of Governors “have an unscheduled meeting via conference call” on such a major topic just prior to the AGM does raise eyebrows or alarm bells as it gives the impression that something urgent needed to be done and this required the “unscheduled meeting”.

 

Surely the highest priority item should have been dealt with in the normal course of business in a normal boardroom meeting.

 

Since  it wasn’t and nobody seems to have an informed or rational reason as to why this took place then there is cause for concern.  Is the decision to proceed with MOTS and FFC being reversed or is it being put on hold and for what reason.

 

Given that the AGM is only 6 weeks away and Motions are likely being drafted for the AGM, the last thing you need is a cloud of suspicion as to what is happening before the AGM.

 

It could very well be a housekeeping move but if it is then explain what is going on.  Surprisingly no one has offered anything authoritative on the reasons for the emergency conference call meeting and the timing seems weird but I am not in the loop so maybe those that are can enlighten the rest of us.

 

The Motion apparently stated MOTS realignment be “deferred indefinitely”.  That phrase sounds very negative to me.

[Doogirl69]

22 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

You could be right... the complexities of merging districts could be significant enough that the BOG have heard... not enough time to make this happen... we need an extension but can't set a realistic timeline without more consideration of the situation.

Exactly, the key word is "deferred". 

[bbakernbay]

Actually, “deferred indefinitely” creates more questions as to whether MOTS is being re-worked or whether this is only a temporary delay to allow the existing plan to be implemented.

[signfan]

On 7/30/2018 at 5:12 PM, zoso said:

Rightly so. Snowmobiling is enjoyed by a demographic that is very wealthy. There is zero need to give ten cents of government money to it or any other leisure activity enjoyed by the rich.

 

 

 

 

 

Have to disagree on  this one.  There is a strong business case for the govt to assist in funding the sport that pays dividends back to the government every season through tax revenue.  There is certainly some wealthy folks that enjoy the sport.  But there is also a large snowmobiling population that would be considered middle class.  As for the conservatives not funding the sport.  I'd suggest the past be looked at.  The Mike Harris gov't provided the OFSC with the TSA program which was $15 million over 5 years.  This happened while gov't spending was being scrutinized and cut.  This time around should be no different.  A permit price increase is a separate issue worth debating.  But providing the OFSC with the minimal gov't funding that has occurred should continue.  Its peanuts compared to what is being spent by the provincial gov't on other forms of recreation in this province.  Just look at what has been spent on hockey rinks, bike trails, sports fields and community parks in this province.  One of these projects would spend the equivalent of what the OFSC receives each year.  Then the taxpayer pays to operate those facilities where OFSC covers all operating costs.  It's an easy argument to make.

[Doogirl69]

10 hours ago, bbakernbay said:

Actually, “deferred indefinitely” creates more questions as to whether MOTS is being re-worked or whether this is only a temporary delay to allow the existing plan to be implemented.

Only the district realignment from 16 to 12 is being deferred not all of MOTS. Ask your governor for the memo.

[SuperG]

A welcome change in my eyes. Yes some parts of mots does make sense and helps but in most areas is creating a lot of headache. A lot of districts are feeling the pinch and have been operating in the red for quite some time since this mots idea came about. There was never really any REAL numbers showing cost savings for district mergers etc other than they would be saving on instead of giving two groomers to two districts they would now only be giving one to a super district to fight amongst themselves as to where it’ll go. As for saving on administration I really call bs on that one! Getting rid of one admin just to hire another more payed manager $90k + a year just to manage groomer fleet etc plus all the other consulting groups getting shelled money to etc. Seriously what a waste of money! 

 

I think we are best to keep some some parts of mots that worked and come up with a better proven system that works unanimously!

 

Over 40% membership against mots and it was passed should not have done. Instead this has devided a lot of the membership especially on such a major change to the company. We need a plan with lots of discussion with proven results and input from the membership and NOT from outside agencies wanting to make a buck! We have a lot of great talent within our membership and we should capitalize on that. Just my lousey two cents on it.