More On The Snow

[Canadianlad]

I guess most of you have not heard but Soupkid is in the hospital in extremely serious condition in an induced coma to deal with medical conditions I will not get into.

On the MOTS issue in D12 as Kevin said we are 90% there in this area and most of us are leaning favourably if a few items can be tweaked.

Personally I have only a couple concerns - One may be unique to the north and that is the new district boundaries - These cover vast areas and in D12 for example going from one end to the other of the district would take 5-6 hours by car on a good day in the summer. It will have a major impact on how we communicate with groomer operators and ensure their safety and could mean an enormous cost to upgrade our radio system if even possible. This is probably my biggest concern and currently is holding me back from endorsing this 100%. I guess I am biased in this as I currently am the person who manages the operators and is responsible for them.

The second issue I struggle with is the proposed by-Laws on how the district board is composed. The MOTS is a bit confusing and also conflicts in some areas (I have read these documents numerous times). I struggle with this as I see it as dictating how you will elect the board and also excludes members of clubs from running/holding officer positions. I would prefer to see it said that the officers of the district would be elected by board from the membership (not from the board) and if someone was on the board and elected as an officer would be replaced. I feel the officers should propose policy etc and the board vote it up or down. If they do both they are in conflict or at the very least prejudicing the decision.

[sledjunk]

First off, thank you for letting us know about soupkids and please pass on our best wishes to him and his family.

 

Secondly, I must reiterate that while MOTS may be similar to what you are doing now, does not mean that it is the right way to force upon  the rest of the province, especially in the short timeframe.  For those of us who are forced into new districts and also into grooming associations, this is too much change in too short a period of time.  I cannot help but feel that this will adversely affect this season, and after last year's dismal season, will again cause a drop in permits.

 

My other concern is I do not see where the savings are coming from that will overcome the hiring of paid staff at the district and regional levels.  The proposal has estimated around $500K for the regional positions (an optimistic estimate, IMO), but the district administration, grooming coordination and management seem to be full time jobs and likely additional paid positions.

 

With the district restructuring as proposed, I think that is enough of a change for this season.  That pause will allow the new districts to start to meet and work together.

[Canadianlad]

First off, thank you for letting us know about soupkids and please pass on our best wishes to him and his family.

 

Secondly, I must reiterate that while MOTS may be similar to what you are doing now, does not mean that it is the right way to force upon  the rest of the province, especially in the short timeframe.  For those of us who are forced into new districts and also into grooming associations, this is too much change in too short a period of time.  I cannot help but feel that this will adversely affect this season, and after last year's dismal season, will again cause a drop in permits.

 

My other concern is I do not see where the savings are coming from that will overcome the hiring of paid staff at the district and regional levels.  The proposal has estimated around $500K for the regional positions (an optimistic estimate, IMO), but the district administration, grooming coordination and management seem to be full time jobs and likely additional paid positions.

 

With the district restructuring as proposed, I think that is enough of a change for this season.  That pause will allow the new districts to start to meet and work together.

 

I am not even trying to tell you which way to vote on MOTS - for us it may sound not to daunting - for others this will be a giant step. If you did not like grooming associations as you figured they were not good and clubs doing it was better you will not like this as you do loose some control of when/where / with which groomer and how your trails get groomed. Do you loose all say - NO. Clubs still have a say through grooming committees and your B of D (and every club should be represented on this board) as they direct what and how things get done. Framework for change and last years groomer study and subsequently having districts (clubs) come up with plans on how they would meet groomer reduction numbers was a step in this direction.

As for how it will save money - no need to have a bunch of spare groomers sitting in case your clubs breaks down - reduced groomers as no boundaries -less groomers and no boundaries means fewer operators required and less fuel used, fewer repairs and more consistent grooming across the district.

This will lead to less volunteer work as fewer operators needed - club treasurers will have much less work as most will be done at the district. It will also lead to more transparency and accountability in how your district dollars are spent locally and the dollars will be spent where needed and not hoarded.

Personally I would have liked to see the districts stay for one more year and get current districts get the systems in place before expanding as I don't see a lot of savings in the expansion of the districts (but maybe in some areas this makes it better and easier - don't know?)

Having the districts accountable for the dollars makes sense - clubs will still be able to have a budget line and spend dollars - the difference is in the accountability of the dollars and ensuring they are spent on proper things (trails and grooming) and not put in someone's pockets or non essentials.

Like I said my biggest beef is still how the Boards and officers get elected to ensure every club and club member gets an say in this and not just a few. If this issue is resolved to my satisfaction I will support this - you and others may not as you see it as too big a change at one time. Maybe an expanded timeframe for implementation is your hold up or maybe something else ????????? That is wht the AGM is for - get the answers you need or vote it down

Oh just for saying - MOTS is not up for a vote - this was accepted last year (some of us wanted the vote delayed but the floor accepted the wording ' Accepted in principle")  and only the implementation plan needed to be brought back to the membership (not necessarily accepted by the AGM). In reality the BOG has fulfilled it's mandate and could implement it without a vote but I doubt they would do that as it would never get done. I would think they would need an 75-80% margin to get it to work properly. Personally I would like to see a secret counted ballet system used for this vote to stop the masses voting the same so I/they don't look bad or to please their counterparts. As for the one person deciding yes it passed or no it didn't with a raised hand, I know Harold has always been pretty fair (sometimes cut debate to quickly) but I have seen times when he decided one way and I am not so sure it was right.

[FreezerBurnt]

Hope Kevin recovers quickly and better then ever

 

Think of you Kev

Jay

[SuperG]

Hoping the best for Kevin and a quick recovery! 

 

As for MOTS, Most of it makes sense but others not so much. Going from club based to district based grooming etc I believe is a good thing and most of my district has that all in place now. All the clubs in the district get along great so no animosity between them. But the OFSC now changing things around, changing boundaries, wanting to force districts to amalgamate saying that it'll save administration $, but will be paying more for super administrators and other positions etc. I DONT see where the savings is!!?? If anything I see us loosing money! As well if your area has a significant problem, could you imagine trying to get a hold of that super administrator!  Those are good enough reasons for me NOT to be voting for this. There is too much hidden agenda at the OFSC. 

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

Best hopes and wishes for Kevin's quick recovery.

[Nunz]

I wish Kevin a recovery and that he will be ok, am planning on visiting him on Thanksgiving when we head north.

[Techdenis007]

https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-licence-plate-sticker

 

half price for cars, free for sleds. 

 

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns248-260/255/prvncs/on-eng.html

 

places in Ontario you can get money off your taxes.  lots of sledders up there I'm sure eh 02sled? 

 

 

You got me on the val tags, but I was pretty sure on the tax-free areas, and knew it didn't apply to us.  Thanks for clarification.  Always appreciate being steered right when I'm wrong, and I rarely do argue unless I'm sure.

 

 

Thanks also for the update on Soupkids.  Sure was glad to have met him, even only for a coupla minutes trailside late last season.  God Speed Soup.

[volunteer2]

https://www.ontario.ca/page/renew-licence-plate-sticker

 

half price for cars, free for sleds. 

 

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns248-260/255/prvncs/on-eng.html

 

places in Ontario you can get money off your taxes.  lots of sledders up there I'm sure eh 02sled? 

As was posted by Bucking Pig the tax reductions are north of the 50 degrees. Where is Northern Ontario with regards to the val tag prices? I had heard north of the French River.   The MTO website doesn't seem to have the info.

[Techdenis007]

Hearst is at 49°41.883'N or so, just for the numbers ....

[SuperG]

I believe I did not paying for a val tag in parry sound. 

[Bigfish]

Best wishes to Kevin and family!

 

As for MOTS, IMHO there are two major issues here: 1) realignment of districts and creation of district directed grooming operations. 2) changes in provincial government NFP policies, and how it will impact the OFSC/districts/clubs.

 

These are separate issues and should not be rolled into one take it or leave it package. As NFP policy changes are at least 5 years away, I believe we should focus on the district grooming changes and defer the NFP policy changes, until we take care of any unforeseen issues that arise with grooming/district changes.

 

In other words. one step at a time!

[volunteer2]

MOTS supplementary report is out.    On Clubhouse.

[bbakernbay]

Nobody with a reaction to the MOTS Supplementary Report?

[sledjunk]

Still digesting it.

 

I still think this is too much, too fast. 

 

I think the idea of saving $500K by reducing the number of districts and having 10 administrators do the bookkeeping that 200 did previously is a pipe dream.  There is also a plan for contracting a transition team, but I do not see a costing for that contract. 

 

I also do not know how one corporation (OFSC) can dictate what another corporation (the districts) adopts as its bylaws.  Are the bylaws not under the perview of the members?

 

I will still vote no.

[Wildbill]

Best wishes to Kevin and family!

 

As for MOTS, IMHO there are two major issues here: 1) realignment of districts and creation of district directed grooming operations. 2) changes in provincial government NFP policies, and how it will impact the OFSC/districts/clubs.

 

These are separate issues and should not be rolled into one take it or leave it package. As NFP policy changes are at least 5 years away, I believe we should focus on the district grooming changes and defer the NFP policy changes, until we take care of any unforeseen issues that arise with grooming/district changes.

 

In other words. one step at a time!

The first point needs to be split as well .

[Nutter]

I see how these regional mangers will save us huge dollars and also bring in much more grant money for the regions. I also see the benifits in geographically lining up with provincial tourism regions.

My thoughts at this point are lets do the dist geographic reset and hire the regional managers and see how we make out after a season. Then we can carry on with moving forward adjusting the plan accordingly.

[Canadianlad]

Coming from a long time grooming association and knowing how it works and the benefits - I understand and agree with it. It sounds like you give something up but think of it this way you gain a share and maybe use of every other groomer in the district if something happens yours. Also no more worries abut the cost of repairs to small clubs.

From a financial perspective - I like what it says. agree it improves accountability and would even go further like someone said a long time ago - All permit dollars go to the OFSC and be distributed according to need ( like the equalization plan - this would make a level playing field). This one definitely helps reduce club volunteer work (gives more work to the district)

I feel the By-laws need some work - the membership needs some input into not only the directors (electing a club rep) but also into selecting the officers (maybe not voting on them but at least in nominating who cam stand. The current MOTS version is confusing, conflicting and heavy handed. This almost sounds like the district will operate in seclusion from the  membership.

I do not like or think the district realignment is necessary or that it will save many dollars if the groomer reduction process started last year was carried out and if the administration was implemented with the district in charge of permit dollars. (Districts are too big in areas and will become unmanageable and create many problems and turmoil among volunteers who will walk away) 

I do not see an increase in permit sales this year - even with good conditions I see a decrease with online sales only especially in the north and the multi day permit and free weekend will become the permit of choice for southerners

As for the 4 or 6 regional people - I really not sure  what they will do other than look for grants (which is great) but at $85,000/year each plus I would assume expenses for traveling, rooms etc in the regions would be over $100,000 each. Why could governors not do much of what I see these people saying they will be doing and one person be hired to look for grants (sounds a little like they are making high paying jobs for someone(s).

I am sitting on the fence and could vote either way - but do see the need for change. Is this a bit too much in some areas with not enough voice given to the clubs in how to make some of these changes (e.g. Tell the districts what their District Board needs to consist of in the end and give them the option of how they do it as long as in the end the result is met).

Will be an interesting discussion at AGM

[slomo]

I see how these regional mangers will save us huge dollars and also bring in much more grant money for the regions. I also see the benifits in geographically lining up with provincial tourism regions.

 

You see? - good - explain to us - How will the new managers save huge dollars and bring in grant money? This is more $ on the snow?  More H.S. Nutter. (assuming mangers was a typo - unless this is some other plan)

[Nutter]

You see? - good - explain to us - How will the new managers save huge dollars and bring in grant money? This is more $ on the snow?  More H.S. Nutter. (assuming mangers was a typo - unless this is some other plan)

 

 

Currently in our district (and I suspect others) there is almost zero coordination in trail improvement projects and in groomer maintenance and grooming, each club is out there doing their own thing. There isn't that one go to person that knows what each club is doing and what each club has for trail building and maintaining equip, including grooming equip and the shape it's in. There's lots more but I don't have time to type it all out,but the jest of it is there. 

 

Having someone there to quarterback that knows all the grant resources available within that Provincial Tourism Region and all the existing club and district resources would be a great asset IMO. Especially when that person is working together with a team of 5 others representing the 5 other regions.  Small examples are our district uses 9 different fuel suppliers all with different fuel prices, same goes for lumber for bridging, and for groomer parts, also most don't even have a clue whats remotely available locally or provincially for grants. Really the only thing our district does as one collective is purchase signs. LOL   Honestly I don't ever see a volunteer stepping up to take on a task like that, and if you piece it all out to many volunteers IMO it's just not going to be as effective. 

[Nutter]

Coming from a long time grooming association and knowing how it works and the benefits - I understand and agree with it. It sounds like you give something up but think of it this way you gain a share and maybe use of every other groomer in the district if something happens yours. Also no more worries abut the cost of repairs to small clubs.

From a financial perspective - I like what it says. agree it improves accountability and would even go further like someone said a long time ago - All permit dollars go to the OFSC and be distributed according to need ( like the equalization plan - this would make a level playing field). This one definitely helps reduce club volunteer work (gives more work to the district)

I feel the By-laws need some work - the membership needs some input into not only the directors (electing a club rep) but also into selecting the officers (maybe not voting on them but at least in nominating who cam stand. The current MOTS version is confusing, conflicting and heavy handed. This almost sounds like the district will operate in seclusion from the  membership.

I do not like or think the district realignment is necessary or that it will save many dollars if the groomer reduction process started last year was carried out and if the administration was implemented with the district in charge of permit dollars. (Districts are too big in areas and will become unmanageable and create many problems and turmoil among volunteers who will walk away) 

I do not see an increase in permit sales this year - even with good conditions I see a decrease with online sales only especially in the north and the multi day permit and free weekend will become the permit of choice for southerners

As for the 4 or 6 regional people - I really not sure  what they will do other than look for grants (which is great) but at $85,000/year each plus I would assume expenses for traveling, rooms etc in the regions would be over $100,000 each. Why could governors not do much of what I see these people saying they will be doing and one person be hired to look for grants (sounds a little like they are making high paying jobs for someone(s).

I am sitting on the fence and could vote either way - but do see the need for change. Is this a bit too much in some areas with not enough voice given to the clubs in how to make some of these changes (e.g. Tell the districts what their District Board needs to consist of in the end and give them the option of how they do it as long as in the end the result is met).

Will be an interesting discussion at AGM

 

 

Biggest issue I see right now in going forward with the plan at hand is we're going to ask districts to merge and in some cases clubs to redistrict and share funds. Many clubs feel very apprehensive right now in trusting that a district board made up of many they have never worked with, let alone even met have a controlling factor in how that clubs local permit buyers dollars are spent. Let's date first, get married and move in together, then after the honeymoon is over we can decide if we want a joint bank account. Who knows some might not be able to live with how some of their new partners leave there dirty clothes around and how they take care of the washer and dryer and decide to just move out LOL 

[Doogirl69]

Is that why grooming associations were formed? STP and MSR seem to be way ahead of the rest.

[Nutter]

Is that why grooming associations were formed? STP and MSR seem to be way ahead of the rest.

 

 

Let's not kid ourselves Dogirl, there's some major political strife in some districts with associations and some also having much greater per km and admin costs than other districts. There's a few people on here in clubs that have had some major uphill battles just to be treated fairly within their own district, all because the voting balance of the dist board has treated them like a redheaded stepchild.  

[PISTON LAKE CRUISER]

Is that why grooming associations were formed? STP and MSR seem to be way ahead of the rest.

I think you may have forgotten one or more grooming associations that have been around for about 30 years and have operated just as effectively as the 2 you mentioned.

[mczed38]

I'm having a hard time visualizing a new district structure under MotS. 

 

Is there still a district governor or are they a NFP president?

Will the district administrator be a paid position?

Will that pay be the same federation wide?

Is there a "grooming guru" who oversees grooming operations district wide? To what degree? Is this a paid position?

Are they ultimately accountable for the quality of the trails?

Do clubs still have a groomer manager? 

 

You can try this link to see my attempt at an org chart for what I think the new structure will resemble.

 

https://creately.com/diagram/it26u6i12/ExhtnWXJtCzOyVjU8MYEeXAHyPM%3D

 

I pretty much support the plan but I am concerned about finding the people to make it work. That District grooming manger will have to be a heck of a people person. Lots of personalities to deal with. The district admin will have a heavy workload and in some cases cover large distances same as our grooming guru.

Even club representative will be going into a potentially intimidating environment. Finding people who can volunteer and represent an organization at a table where more than a dozen other organizations have the same needs to be met could be a challenge. What if alliances are formed within this new structure or biases against people or clubs become evident?

 

I think many of us are missing the forest for the trees in this debate. The success of this initiative will rely on the ability of the people involved to make it work. Can we find those people?