As many of you might know, I have been involved with this process for much more than the past few weeks. In fact I first became aware of the problems with the board and with the by-laws about five or six years ago.

I was also the first to say, that if we are dissatisfied with the boards proposed actions (firing the Hills) then we shouldn't quit, but instead should force the board to recognize their folly, and either fix it, or leave. From the very outset I have felt that we don't have to destroy NAFI to get the problem fixed, we merely have to address the problems, and in fixing them, make NAFI a better and stronger organization.

From this grew an at first small group of committed MCFIs, now morphed into quite a large organized gathering of flight instructors, who sought to get those changes enacted that would "fix" the problem. We knew we were dealing with a "current" board that was firmly entrenched in their position, and that it was highly unlikely that they would change.

It became quickly obvious that they would take a position of "ignore them and they'll go away". But it has also become obvious to me that some of us on the other side, here at TBO-NAFI, are starting to adopt similar attitudes.

I don't know how many of you got to read Michael Maya Charles' email, so I will copy it here:
Sorry I’ve been NORDO for the past few days; I was attending my mother’s 80th birthday celebration over the weekend, and was offline for the duration.

My inbox was stuffed with the usual couple hundred emails this morning, which I’m now just getting through. A fair number of those messages were from TBO-NAFI organizers, and I must say I’m impressed by your ability (especially yours, Rich) to roll out the beginnings of a new organization so quickly.

But I’m not convinced that burning down the house of NAFI and starting a new organization from the ashes is a smart decision. What is really behind the flash-fire that has developed in the past three weeks with the formation of TBO-NAFI? Many of the NAFI “issues” that have been identified have existed for a long time. So in the interest of airing disparate views – a key tenet in the TBO-NAFI platform – I’d like to address what I see happening here that concerns me, and offer a simple solution.

This past week, I’ve listened to Rich Stowell, Joann Hill, Jason Blair, Phil Poynor, Tom Poberezny and left a message for Ken Hoffman, trying to get a feel for their views on this “crisis.” What I found universally are good-hearted individuals, each trying to do something remarkably similar, something that admittedly is very difficult. Some of the players are even spending a lot of their free time on this effort – for free.

The biggest “issue” that I see is a huge gap in communications between NAFI and TBO-NAFI. As a journalist and communicator for over 30 years, this crisis begins and developed with “a failure to communicate.” When you talk with NAFI Chair, Phil Poynor, I believe you’ll find a very intelligent man who is frustrated yet focused, trying to work through the constraints of time and his board – and the bureaucracy of EAA – to make the changes needed within the NAFI organization.

EAA President, Tom Poberezny is also frustrated, but he was not “blown off” when he met with the NAFI board, as has been widely circulated. Instead, he has three proposals before the NAFI board to get the big issues resolved. I believe those proposals are reasonable and workable.

TBO-NAFI’s calling for the NAFI board’s resignation is just plain unreasonable and counter-productive. When a group takes an “all or else” stance like this, it only serves to divide and alienate. The group then must defend its position instead of trying to find a new mutual solution. The issue becomes “Who’s Right?” instead of “What’s Right?” Needless to say, the results of this untenable stance are predictable and never pretty. Think ALPA.

If we drop all the fire and emotion out of this discussion, what do we have?

Ah, the facts. The facts, as represented by the media releases I’ve read through, seem to be disconnected from what I’m hearing from the “other side.” This tells me that each of the two sides need to TELL THEIR STORY -- AND LISTEN to the other. Nothing will change unless the two parties create a safe place to do this. You don’t create a safe place to COM-municate with “demands” and one-sided press releases.

This aviation business is only about 600,000 players, give or take. And it’s dwindling faster than the average American’s stock portfolio. At this stage in our evolution, we cannot afford to be divisive or create more separateness in our little “boy’s club” (sorry, Marcelaine) if we expect it to survive. Instead, we need to work TOGETHER to make it bigger, stronger, and healthier. Starting an organization like TBO-NAFI has proposed is a very difficult one; folks, there are only about 5100 members in NAFI and about 20% leave the group each year. How do you create a sustainable business model as an “independent” organization with those kinds of numbers?

I’d like to encourage those of you in the TBO-NAFI group to add your passion and voice to the existing organization first; call the players at NAFI and EAA and get a feel for their views and especially their heart. I believe you’ll find that their ultimate goals for NAFI are remarkably similar to those of TBO-NAFI. Work with them on how to best get there.

Rich, I ask that you forward this letter to everybody in the TBO-NAFI group in the interest of “transparency.”

I also ask EAA and NAFI to reach out to the people in TBO-NAFI group, to listen to their concerns and ACT sooner rather than later on those issues and concerns. Right now, we need a demonstration of strong leadership from the NAFI organization; we need a clear voice of reason, and a more proactive communication model that speaks to membership in a timely and respectful manner. Do it now.

If a bridge is built between these two groups, it will only make us stronger, more inclusive. All of our voices will be heard if we will only listen – really listen – to each other. Change starts there.

And isn’t that what we all really want?

Sincerely,
Michael Maya Charles
EAA 85990
NAFI 16941
mmc@artfulpublishing.com

I must say that I concur completely with Michael's viewpoint. As I have stated to the governance and affiliation/sponsorship committees for whom I serve, there is every reason to prepare a "plan B" (that being of starting a new organization) for the eventuality of having to make a break with NAFI/EAA, but for now I am still committed 100% to "plan A" that of getting the current board to begin, within the next two weeks, serious dialogue with those of us of TBO-NAFI.

I just finished a phone conversation with Tom Poberezny, and I know that he is not about to let EAA loose their vast investment of not only time, but also significant monetary contribution in support of NAFI. His proposals to the board directly address TBO-NAFI's concerns. We also spoke of the need for expediency, and of the fact that the Board's makeup has to be changed sooner rather than later.

I would like to ask all of us to not be "impulsive". We know it's a hazardous attitude. It doesn't work in the cockpit... it's not going to work for us now. The same goes for all of the other four hazardous attitudes. Let us please... aviate, navigate, communicate.

The air has gotten quite turbulent. It's time to pull the power back and slow to VA. Once the airplane's back under control, let's take a look at where we are going. Flying straight ahead into a thunderstorm isn't going to be pretty. And then finally let's please establish some serious communication. This is necessary from both sides. The more entrenched both sides get, the less likely for there to be a satisfactory resolution

Thanks for taking the time to read all of this!

Sincerely,
Doug Stewart
2004 Nat'l CFI OTY

I agree with Steve, Michael and Doug that we must be careful not to do more damage than good. Also, I wonder why no one will come right out and describe the exact nature of the disagreements between the Hills and the board. I have talked with Sandy and heard only "governance." I wonder if that is the whole story. Without complete information it is not possible to reach a judgment regarding whether or not the Hills should be removed from the board - or about who else should be removed.

We at TBO-NAFI now have plan A and B. Plan A is to try and work out something with the existing board and officers so that NAFI is more responsive and the board more representative of the membership. Plan B is to start a competing organization and ask flight instructors to join it. I have worked with two sub-committees of TBO-NAFI to help craft plan B and have offered to help with the start up if the we decide on plan B - and if I agree with that decision. But, I don't think we should go to plan B until we have exhausted every reasonable effort to reach an acceptable revision of NAFI governance and transparency.

Regarding plan B, I wonder if we really have a grasp of the amount of work required to reach the point where NAFI is now. We have sponsors, serious recognition of our MCFI program the FAA, and an affiliation with the EAA which gives us access to a very large group of pilots and CFI’s. Also, the EAA is in a position to provide NAFI with staff and facilities. None of this will be immediately available to a new group starting from scratch. The work required to reach that point is enormous and will take years.

The NAFI board is apparently intent on bringing the MCFI program under their direct control through the new ED. If the organization needs an ED, then it makes sense that he or she should have some control over the affairs of the group. However, professional designations need to be granted by folks who themselves are professionally qualified - which would mean experienced and recognized MCFI's. Up until now, the small group that Sandy and JoAnn supervise has done the evaluations. Now, it looks like the ED will designate persons of his choice to perform this task. It is not clear how this is progress, nor is it clear that professional standards will be maintained. This has the effect of taking the Hills and the current MCFI evaluation group out of the loop and leaving it to the ED as to how to utilize their services, should he choose to do so. It is difficult to see how professional standards can be maintained unless the expertise of the current evaluation group is kept in the organization. Further announcements on this issue are needed.

I would like to see the current NAFI board hold an open meeting with all who want to attend. Likewise, minutes of board meetings and financial reports for the previous three years should be made available. The practice of a small group of privileged board members re-electing themselves until death must be stopped and direct elections instituted. If this is not done – and not done fairly quickly - I strongly suspect that TBO-NAFI will execute plan B. NAFI may survive but will be damaged. Further, the FAA’s recognition of the MCFI depends on NAFI maintaining professional standards in the evaluation process. If the MCFI turns into a diploma mill, then we will all be hurt and the FAA will likely pull or current very significant recognition and privileges.

Here’s the bottom line. The first objective should remain to revamp the governance of NAFI. Making extreme demands is not the way to get that done. Threatening to split off if those demands are not met is not very productive either. Getting ready to split does prove serious intent but we should hold at that point until all efforts to reach acceptable compromise regarding NAFI governance and operations have been exhausted. That won’t happen overnight so we will need patience and perseverance to execute either plan.

With those objectives in mind, our next step at SJC should be to designate a small group of perhaps 3-5 knowledgeable and experienced individuals to represent TBO-NAFI to directly communicate with the board, EAA, the and other involved parties. The rest of us should then refrain from calling the board, Tom, and the ED to talk about the issues and get our information from our chosen representatives. This will clarify the lines of communication, which is necessary for progress.

Just my tuppence worth.

Gerry Parker, CPA, MCFI
gparker@pmkc.com
www.pmkc.com
Cell: 713-826-6663

Duc, sequere vel abi
Lead, follow, or get out of the way

I've said for some time that I suspect that the proposed movement of the MCFI program from the Hills to "NAFI HQ" may in fact have originated from EAA, not from the NAFI Board, hence Tom Poberezny's messages on the subject, and his recent push in that direction.

Consider EAA Airventure as an example...lots of work done by volunteers, all at the behest of EAA. EAA collects the fees, volunteers get a pat on the back. Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that concept if you can pull it off.

The point is here though, that the Hills are being reimbursed to handle the MCFI program. Not that much, but I'm sure EAA sees that as money out of pocket, to accomplish work that could be done by volunteers.

I don't see a solution to this dilemma within the current NAFI/EAA structure, frankly unless EAA backs off of this move, and I seriously doubt that'll happen.

I'd like to see NAFI continue as a viable entity, but if we want to see the Hills continue to run the MCFI program, my guess is that it will have to be done within another organization.

Just some speculation, for what it's worth.

Mike