Jump to content

More On The Snow


Greggie

Recommended Posts

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. 

How the heck do you see these regional managers saving HUGE money!!!??? We will be spending MORE money with them with having to pay their big salaries, plus good luck trying to get a hold of them when theres a problem on the trail or else where! An district re alignment is a bit ridiculous. 

 

An nice to have someone there to quarterback that knows ALL grant resources for each tourism regions. NO we do NOT need to be spending more money on another outrageous salary for them to know about that for each area along with needing them to figure out one fuel supplier etc. Knowing about grant resources for each area to know to tap into SHOULD be on that Paul shaunashey or mike mcClure that are already paid outrageous $100,000 plus a year salaries!

 

Get your district on board then. Get all the clubs together and say hey, lets come up with ONE fuel supplier for the whole district! Get one guy or a couple to help manage groomer repairs and service. Those are some things that my district has finally implemented last season. It's doable as long as all clubs can get along and do whats best for the greater good.

 

I can only see that its another way for the OFSC upper brass to control more on what THEY want done.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 630
  • Created
  • Last Reply

How the heck do you see these regional managers saving HUGE money!!!??? We will be spending MORE money with them with having to pay their big salaries, plus good luck trying to get a hold of them when theres a problem on the trail or else where! An district re alignment is a bit ridiculous. 

 

An nice to have someone there to quarterback that knows ALL grant resources for each tourism regions. NO we do NOT need to be spending more money on another outrageous salary for them to know about that for each area along with needing them to figure out one fuel supplier etc. Knowing about grant resources for each area to know to tap into SHOULD be on that Paul shaunashey or mike mcClure that are already paid outrageous $100,000 plus a year salaries!

 

Get your district on board then. Get all the clubs together and say hey, lets come up with ONE fuel supplier for the whole district! Get one guy or a couple to help manage groomer repairs and service. Those are some things that my district has finally implemented last season. It's doable as long as all clubs can get along and do whats best for the greater good.

 

I can only see that its another way for the OFSC upper brass to control more on what THEY want done.   

 

G. Serious disagreement over the salary value of Paul and Mike. Check out what similar positions are paid in the real world and you will see the value of their "outrageous" wage. Hell, cops, Fire persons, ambulance, teachers etc etc etc make as much if not more and certainly don't work the hours these two do.

Nutters point is at present the OFSC sees a saving in reducing admin and I agree. Why hire staff, because districts can't get their crap together and do it on their own ( for whatever reason). The OFSC wants, and rightly so consistent operations across the province and this is the best way to implement it. As far as the wage, it is my understanding its $85K all in. So, that's vehicle, mileage, accommodation, meals, office, cell phone ( need I go on) That probably means the actual salary is around $35K

District fuel supply does not work for us, too big an area, too many deals already in place including tank locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I respect yours an nutters opinion, but in all fairness, police, fire, paramedics, Corrections etc all have unique working conditions and requirements. The amount of BS, life and death situations, and having to put your life on the line everyday for those professions. They earn every penny they get! I can't say the same for those two. How many club presidents, club volunteers, directors etc spend an enormous amount of their own personal time to hammer out LUP agreements, deal with trail issues, other club business, attend all district and club meetings etc. Quite alot of hours are spent working hard by these people while NOT getting paid a cent! So I dont buy that paul and mike show!

 

As for the super duper managers at 85 k . I guarantee you that is NOT all in! phone, accommodations, meals, office, gas,  etc etc etc are all add on expense that they will get to claim for reimbursement or will have a nice shiny ofsc credit card to pay all said expenses. Oh an guaranteed they will make sure whoever they hire will have never been on a snowmobile before. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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. 

 

Idea starts out well. Soon, manager needs an executive assistant. Both need secretaries. Office is too small - lease or buy larger space. Sudden multiplication of office furniture, computers, fancy telephone system.....pretty soon each 'district' is bigger than the OFSC office in Barrie before it laid off much of its staff a few years ago as being unaffordable - as I think your friend Mr. McGirr knows about.

 

Accountability? Who really knows if this lumber yard was the best value or someone's friend? Local clubs know this already or will support those who support sledding in their area. Talk to SuperG about the barbeque he set up last year - several local businesses went way out of their way to help out for no real gain. These new managers might be tempted to look elsewhere for contracts - maybe even some miles away for the best deals, alienating the local folks who have always helped.

 

I'm sure ONLY ONE person for the whole province is needed to find out about grants available etc. for the whole system - in my previous work experience finding funding sources was never difficult and each had its own particular means / adjudication needed to successfully apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idea starts out well. Soon, manager needs an executive assistant. Both need secretaries. Office is too small - lease or buy larger space. Sudden multiplication of office furniture, computers, fancy telephone system.....pretty soon each 'district' is bigger than the OFSC office in Barrie before it laid off much of its staff a few years ago as being unaffordable - as I think your friend Mr. McGirr knows about.

 

Accountability? Who really knows if this lumber yard was the best value or someone's friend? Local clubs know this already or will support those who support sledding in their area. Talk to SuperG about the barbeque he set up last year - several local businesses went way out of their way to help out for no real gain. These new managers might be tempted to look elsewhere for contracts - maybe even some miles away for the best deals, alienating the local folks who have always helped.

 

I'm sure ONLY ONE person for the whole province is needed to find out about grants available etc. for the whole system - in my previous work experience finding funding sources was never difficult and each had its own particular means / adjudication needed to successfully apply.

Sadly this iswhat is strangling healthcare and most other govt arms how can we possibly believe that it will not happen to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X2.

And factor in the slippery slope problem.

Look at the current government mayhem, heck, don't look too closely, there's enough blood pressure issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly this iswhat is strangling healthcare and most other govt arms how can we possibly believe that it will not happen to us?

 

 

It's already happened to us a long long time ago by our own doing Bill, $2.7million spent annually by district, club and associations on administration. Some can't see the forest for the trees, because they only look at their own little section of the wood lot convinced this is the only way to run a wood lot.  Were operating like a logging camp without a foreman to tell us where and how to cut and a conservationist helping us replant. A handfull people in one office can only provide so much support for 200 clubs, along with all the other duties we and changing times have placed on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small logging camp woodlot analogy  might not be so good. Because when the big companies go logging they at times try and clear cut and have little regard for the unique needs of parts of the forest that need different attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The small logging camp woodlot analogy  might not be so good. Because when the big companies go logging they at times try and clear cut and have little regard for the unique needs of parts of the forest that need different attention.

 

We are  not out of the woods yet. And we have been down this road before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a Facebook person at all    Just this one thread    There has been very little action there,  way more action here and I was sure it would be posted here too.  I am sure someone from that District could post here too since it is very interesting information and so many people are involved with OFSC on this site.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked for the link but cannot find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Box 987, 67 Armstrong St.
Bracebridge, ON P1L 1V2
P: 705-645-3123 | F: 705-645-3451
September 15, 2016
OPEN LETTER TO OFSC MEMBERS
OFSC District 7 Muskoka would like to emphasize to the OFSC Board of Governors that our members are not against
change. We, the volunteers of the District 7 board wish to make it clear again our unanimous opposition to the
proposed District realignment and its associated costs as contained in the More on the Snow proposal for AGM 2016.
Our dedicated core volunteers have been expected to shoulder ever increasing responsibilities with shrinking
operational revenue each year, this is not a task that we are prepared to undertake.
The District 7 board and other Districts have, on several occasions in writing to the OFSC President Remi Sauvé,
voiced their concerns regarding the proposed re-alignment and aggressive timelines for the changes contained in the
AGM 2016 information to membership. In his response to District concerns Mr. Sauvé stated the key reasons for the
re-alignment of districts is to secure sustainability and stability for the future of the organization. This is a concern
for District 7 which currently returns more than 50% of its gross permit revenues to the provincial organization for
program management and redistribution to the Equalization Fund. This district is one of the most stable and
sustainable entities, with paid annual permit sales in excess of 6700 units, and can stand on its own. If this district is
unstable or unsustainable it is only because of an imbalance in the funding formula.
Since the implementation of Framework for Change, District 7 has diligently been working on reducing expenditures
within its control, administration costs, grooming, equipment maintenance and trail expenses have been under
constant scrutiny. We have through the efforts of our members cut costs by tens of thousands of dollars each year
which makes the district even more stable from a purely financial perspective. Can we do better, absolutely, but not
under this new proposal for realignment and merging of District 7 and 10.
The District 7 board believes that realignment is counterproductive and does not enhance grooming operations nor
put More on the Snow for either Districts 7 or 10. We ask that the proposed merger of 7 and 10 be deferred for at
least one year pending the implementation of the other components contained within the AGM 2016 package.
SCORECARD MOTS 2015 - The key priorities of the strategic plan were:
1. Increase overall participation in organized snowmobiling by at least 6% to 100,000 paid permits – PASS/FAIL
2. Develop and commence implementation of a new organizational structure that:
a. Reduces the number of layers of accountability (permit revenue) to two – PASS/FAIL
b. Reduce the need for local clubs to be standalone NFP corporations – PASS/FAIL
3. Consistent with the new organizational structure, develop:
a. A Groomer Fleet Asset Management Program and – PASS/FAIL
Box 987, 67 Armstrong St.
Bracebridge, ON P1L 1V2
P: 705-645-3123 | F: 705-645-3451
b. A Groomer Fleet Operational Management Program – PASS/FAIL
4. Continue to pursue long-term government support programs to generate at least $5 million per year – PASS/FAIL
The lack of progress on the priorities set out for the BOG in 2016 should cause the membership to question why?
Now, a year later, the priorities have not been successfully achieved or implemented; we are now as volunteers
expected to engage in an entirely new set of priorities with a totally different focus!!
At AGM 2015 we were directed to become a single permit selling entity in order to comply with one of the
components of FFC and year one of MOTS. District 7 began working toward the integration of our 11 clubs, but
without any guiding policies or procedures it proved to be a difficult path.
Districts 7, as well as several other districts are concerned over the timelines and monumental volunteer time that
will be required to complete what is being mandated in the 2016 – 2017 proposals. This is cause for great concern to
the district and its board.
District 7 has lost all confidence and credibility of the OFSC due to yearly program changes and lack of transparency.
Volunteers are the backbone of this organization and a rapid implementation will wear them down, resulting in more
resignations, bitterness, and infighting. The budget for MOTS is unclear and numbers need to be worked out and
more importantly communicated to the volunteers.
Only by implementing our following concerns, will District 7 accept MOTS 2016 and keep D7 viable:
 Comprehensive Business Plan and Groomer Fleet Management Program
 District Centralization and Trail Rationalization before any consideration of District Realignment
 Reasonable timelines
 Total transparent accountability

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Box 987, 67 Armstrong St.

Bracebridge, ON P1L 1V2

P: 705-645-3123 | F: 705-645-3451

September 15, 2016

OPEN LETTER TO OFSC MEMBERS

OFSC District 7 Muskoka would like to emphasize to the OFSC Board of Governors that our members are not against

change. We, the volunteers of the District 7 board wish to make it clear again our unanimous opposition to the

proposed District realignment and its associated costs as contained in the More on the Snow proposal for AGM 2016.

Our dedicated core volunteers have been expected to shoulder ever increasing responsibilities with shrinking

operational revenue each year, this is not a task that we are prepared to undertake.

The District 7 board and other Districts have, on several occasions in writing to the OFSC President Remi Sauvé,

voiced their concerns regarding the proposed re-alignment and aggressive timelines for the changes contained in the

AGM 2016 information to membership. In his response to District concerns Mr. Sauvé stated the key reasons for the

re-alignment of districts is to secure sustainability and stability for the future of the organization. This is a concern

for District 7 which currently returns more than 50% of its gross permit revenues to the provincial organization for

program management and redistribution to the Equalization Fund. This district is one of the most stable and

sustainable entities, with paid annual permit sales in excess of 6700 units, and can stand on its own. If this district is

unstable or unsustainable it is only because of an imbalance in the funding formula.

Since the implementation of Framework for Change, District 7 has diligently been working on reducing expenditures

within its control, administration costs, grooming, equipment maintenance and trail expenses have been under

constant scrutiny. We have through the efforts of our members cut costs by tens of thousands of dollars each year

which makes the district even more stable from a purely financial perspective. Can we do better, absolutely, but not

under this new proposal for realignment and merging of District 7 and 10.

The District 7 board believes that realignment is counterproductive and does not enhance grooming operations nor

put More on the Snow for either Districts 7 or 10. We ask that the proposed merger of 7 and 10 be deferred for at

least one year pending the implementation of the other components contained within the AGM 2016 package.

SCORECARD MOTS 2015 - The key priorities of the strategic plan were:

1. Increase overall participation in organized snowmobiling by at least 6% to 100,000 paid permits – PASS/FAIL

2. Develop and commence implementation of a new organizational structure that:

a. Reduces the number of layers of accountability (permit revenue) to two – PASS/FAIL

b. Reduce the need for local clubs to be standalone NFP corporations – PASS/FAIL

3. Consistent with the new organizational structure, develop:

a. A Groomer Fleet Asset Management Program and – PASS/FAIL

Box 987, 67 Armstrong St.

Bracebridge, ON P1L 1V2

P: 705-645-3123 | F: 705-645-3451

b. A Groomer Fleet Operational Management Program – PASS/FAIL

4. Continue to pursue long-term government support programs to generate at least $5 million per year – PASS/FAIL

The lack of progress on the priorities set out for the BOG in 2016 should cause the membership to question why?

Now, a year later, the priorities have not been successfully achieved or implemented; we are now as volunteers

expected to engage in an entirely new set of priorities with a totally different focus!!

At AGM 2015 we were directed to become a single permit selling entity in order to comply with one of the

components of FFC and year one of MOTS. District 7 began working toward the integration of our 11 clubs, but

without any guiding policies or procedures it proved to be a difficult path.

Districts 7, as well as several other districts are concerned over the timelines and monumental volunteer time that

will be required to complete what is being mandated in the 2016 – 2017 proposals. This is cause for great concern to

the district and its board.

District 7 has lost all confidence and credibility of the OFSC due to yearly program changes and lack of transparency.

Volunteers are the backbone of this organization and a rapid implementation will wear them down, resulting in more

resignations, bitterness, and infighting. The budget for MOTS is unclear and numbers need to be worked out and

more importantly communicated to the volunteers.

Only by implementing our following concerns, will District 7 accept MOTS 2016 and keep D7 viable:

 Comprehensive Business Plan and Groomer Fleet Management Program

 District Centralization and Trail Rationalization before any consideration of District Realignment

 Reasonable timelines

 Total transparent accountability

 

 

Quite a scathing response to the OFSC brass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that D7 and D10 cannot and will not see the big picture and what is best for the OFSC as a whole. If these districts are functioning so well, kudos. I do get the impression that they are not looking forward to working TOGETHER for the betterment of snowmobiling.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinions but this letter, being posted as it is, unsigned, just seems like sour grapes and hot air.

The MOTS documentation makes it clear that there will be some flexibility in implementation of District realignment. But it's apparent that some districts are isolationist and are only in it for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that D7 and D10 cannot and will not see the big picture and what is best for the OFSC as a whole. If these districts are functioning so well, kudos. I do get the impression that they are not looking forward to working TOGETHER for the betterment of snowmobiling.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinions but this letter, being posted as it is, unsigned, just seems like sour grapes and hot air.

The MOTS documentation makes it clear that there will be some flexibility in implementation of District realignment. But it's apparent that some districts are isolationist and are only in it for themselves.

That type of attitude on your part is not constructive . We know with how busy and how populated our area is that this will not work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that D7 and D10 cannot and will not see the big picture and what is best for the OFSC as a whole. If these districts are functioning so well, kudos. I do get the impression that they are not looking forward to working TOGETHER for the betterment of snowmobiling.

Everyone is entitled to express their opinions but this letter, being posted as it is, unsigned, just seems like sour grapes and hot air.

The MOTS documentation makes it clear that there will be some flexibility in implementation of District realignment. But it's apparent that some districts are isolationist and are only in it for themselves.

 

My opinion differs from yours it would seem. I am part of D7 and for the most part it does work quite well having had a grooming association for many years and the last number of years that grooming association have been able to leverage some synergies and work increasingly well with our stand alone clubs which are not part of the MSR grooming association.

 

This is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of anyone else, any club, district etc.

 

My perception is that D10 also functions quite well and has a cooperative relationship between their clubs and leverages off each other wherever possible for the betterment of the sport in their district as a whole. Whether or not they have a grooming association I am not sure but I believe they do.  

 

My personal concern with merging D7 & D10 is the behemoth of an organization that it will become. D7 has 9 clubs that are part of the MSR grooming association and 2 standalone clubs for a total of 11. D10 I believe has about 7 or 8 or perhaps more. Picture blending the two with an approximate 20 clubs looking for representation at a district level. One club potentially becomes the lost voice in the wilderness perhaps.

 

Then think of the number of permit buyers. While I don't have the numbers available to me my money says that those two districts likely account for 50%+ of all the permits sold in Ontario. I could be wrong and would welcome anyone who has the actual numbers by district handy commenting.

 

Merging the two would make for one very large entity to try and administer. If you liken this to a business Harvard Business Review suggests that the optimal number of direct reports for a senior manager would be 10 which is the current size of  each of the districts with each club President being the "report direct" equivalent for the district administrator to oversee regarding things like acquisitions, grant applications etc. Stretching that to nearly 20 would be a cumbersome task at best and likely lead to things falling through the cracks as the administrator would be stretched rather thin.

 

I am all for synergies and economies of scale to leverage buying power however they can be achieved still with keeping the two districts as separate entities through the sharing of information between the two district administrators. Gone are the days where Home Depot doesn't speak with Lowes about what they are doing. Obviously proprietary things are kept confidential however I guarantee you there is communication between the two executive levels. Similarly communication between two administrators of two districts can and should leverage each other.

 

Once again this is only MY opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D7 and D10 likely account for about 60% of the sledding in the ofsc. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D7 and D10 likely account for about 60% of the sledding in the ofsc. Why?

Are you guys on coke???

The district who sold the most permits is last couple of years District 1 with about 10,000. Second is District 5 with about 9,500. That is together about 19,500 and that is about 22% of all permit sales.

District 7 and 10 are both selling less permits and I don't think that they are the best organized districts......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys on coke???

The district who sold the most permits is last couple of years District 1 with about 10,000. Second is District 5 with about 9,500. That is together about 19,500 and that is about 22% of all permit sales.

District 7 and 10 are both selling less permits and I don't think that they are the best organized districts......

 

My sarcasm was not about sales but rather where they ride.  D10 and D7 are sweet spots no doubt and have a ton of traffic.  Just imagine if they said now said by-by to the OFSC and formed their own organization, where are the D5 permit holders going to ride?  Nobody trailers to D5.  D4 sells a lot too, how many trails get opened each year?  Did  D5 or D1 even open last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the primary issue an amalgamated District that is too big or are there other major concerns?

Are both District 7 & 10 opposed to MOTS as presently proposed.

This surprises me because I thought that this was the MOTS Model - Grooming Associations rather than individual Clubs grooming on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the discussions I'm hearing there are some trust issues. Change is not easy but as we hear we have $10 million dollars tied up in club bank accounts but many clubs are struggling. I just wish instead of saying that MOTS won't work, folks would turn their thinking around and say "Let's MAKE this work."

Of course, climate change could make this whole debate moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...