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