RAAus Constitution Working Party

[Admin]

Hi All

 

Here's a thought...there has been a lot of discussion here on how the current RAAus Constitution is both believed not being adhered to and the poor quality of it...so why not get our own working party together here to devise a new one.

 

Ok, we know this wouldn't be binding in any way, it is not sanctioned by the RAA-us board and it has nothing to do with them BUT say through the large amount of RAAus members here, the brains of many here that have had previous experience in constitutions we come up with one that is accepted by the vast number of RAAus members on this site.

 

It could then be presented to the RAAus board as a new one that has been developed by the cooperation of many RAAus members. The two options open would then be that the board like it and submit to the members formally or the members here make a formal request to the Secretary that it be put to the members.

 

This is a way that we can all get involved in the RAAus.

 

Is this just a wild idea of no merit or does the idea have any substance...and if it does I could set up a private forum for the working party for discussions and who will then come back to the rest of us with their ideas and the work in progress that they are doing...anyone want to be a part of the working party if it is a good idea?

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's not a wild idea; there are quite a few shortcomings in the Constitution, which are relatively easy to fix

 

Expect getting the fixes through to be a long haul though

 

I'll volunteer subject to health

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Good idea but I am just not sure what assistance I can be

 

 

[facthunter]

My view is that you would need input from the regulator, as it has to be approved. I would start with a "sample" draft, (from them). You will find that you are fairly constrained in what you must end up with. The last time I was involved in the changing of an entire constitution of an existing body, it took ages and was inferior to the original but more "standard".. I would be wary of revising it totally. You may find it is better to do a few things to the old Brougham than end up with a brand new Trabant.Nev

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

I can see that changing the Constitution must have regard to how the provisions relate to the Associations Act, and also an audit as to whether the By-laws are in accordance with all of the Constitution's provisions. Any anomalies or discrepancies between these three documents must form the basis of changes to the Constitution and be put to ordinary members with justifications.

 

 

[turboplanner]

All of that FH and Burbles. For the most part the Constitution looks fine

 

 

[facthunter]

This sort of thing should be done ONCE and be done PROPERLY. IF the sub-committe have the confidence of the members and the BOARD (of the future) a recommendation WOULD be put to the members and one would assume it would be passed with no difficulty by the required margin.

 

The usual way to do it is to quote an existing Para. Write the NEW para, section or addition, and the REASONS for change, and just proceed through the document in this fashion. BORING as hell, but I can't see any difficulty getting the result you desire. IF any legal advice etc is required, GET IT.... Nev

 

 

[John Brandon]

I can recall substantial work being done on the constitution document by a member with a legal background (Max Brown?) to bring the wording up to the regulatory standards expected. The result was maybe issue 9 of the constitution which I think was the first time the constitution was published on the website. My recall of time is what you would expect from an octogenarian, but maybe it was five or six years ago.

 

Suggest Ian might ask Julie about the history.

 

cheers

 

John

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not correct Destiny. Association Incorporations are a solution to escalating public liability costs.

 

Without them, many sports would not exist in Australia any more because of litigation cost.

 

I don't disagree that many Associations have a relaxed approach, but so does the mouse when it is cruising towards the cheese.

 

While everything is OK, everything's OK, but when something goes wrong the lawyers will ask for the Constitution

 

I can recall losing one case because the programmes didn't contain the words "Motor Racing is Dangerous", and after getting those words on all 105 tracks around the country, losing another case, because "even though the Plaintiff had been warned he was entering a dangerous are, he had not been advised that he had the right to sue for compensation"

 

The proformas are handy, but you still have to analyse what you do, and spell that out or you aren't protected.

 

And if members/committee/"board members" etc make a decision, which is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Incorporated Association, the protection is gone, so it's not just a matter of semantics, the decision making process must conform.

 

 

[facthunter]

Correction cficare. The "regulator" is not CASA in this instance. I did not clarify the point earlier. I am only talking about incorporation. The regulator being the state body responsible . (I don't know their name in the ACT).

 

RE turbo's comments above.. Your constitution has to be right. It protects YOU the member, by giving you courses of action when someone acts beyond what is permitted, and defines the structure of the organisation, and the way it works.(amongst other things)...Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

BTW, I wouldn't expect major changes to be possible, depending on the Dotars requirements, just incremental adjustments to ensure the members have the correct powers to ensure the management of their association

 

 

[facthunter]

No I accept thee blame as it wasn't clear. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

This is getting nearly as bad as the Wagga Circuit

 

 

[turboplanner]

CFI, you're totally correct, one of the key mistakes was to allow ownership of the Association to slip from the members.

 

Any Association which attracts Type A personalities needs anti clique provisions to stay on an even keel

 

I also agree with you David, there has been quite an effort to keep things hidden by using the old "dirty linen" excuse

 

 

[facthunter]

The Board are there to represent their constituents and attend to the welfare of the organisation generally. The last bit is a condition of membership of the RAAus generally.

 

BR we do have to act as a delegated authority under CASA. They should spell out how they expect us to act on one hand in the interests of our MEMBERSHIP and carry out the increasing amount of enforcement/regulatory functions as they delegate them.. Two potentially opposing (at times) tasks. This could create a considerable dilemma. I actually think this is where we will have the most conflict of interest. Beyond that I wouldn't consider their input valid. We either have a democratic structure under a semi corporate umbrella or we are a regulator. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

The Dotars connection just needs to be studied and I haven't done that.

 

In my previous experience I had a meeting with the applicable Minister and he agreed we could run our own sport.

 

However we didn't have the complication of having to use the same airspace as commercial operations, and that's where Recreational Flying has to dovetail in, so I can underrstand how there has to be an assurance that we are able to operate safely together.

 

 

[Powerin]

I would argue that any ‘confidentiality agreement’ that does not exist in a bylaw has no power in any case, so why are so many Board members intimidated by the bullying of a few?

If I recall correctly from the "other" thread, I think the simple answer is: a lawyer was hired to convince the board it was necessary. At members expense of course...although I would assume the RAAus retains the services of a lawyer. Correct?

I've been on a board where a lawyer was introduce to run through certain things. You tend to trust what they say!

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't know if they have a lawyer firm available "in Tow". It would be reasonable to assume that from time to time they would need legal advice and would be remiss if they didn't obtain it when required. If a lawyer gives advice that is incorrect at lawhe won't be in busines for too long. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

I wasn't there but I would imagine, and what I've heard indirectly, that the legal view was that you could enforce a secrecy provision. ( Under ACT law. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe this happened and maybe it didn't. The point is it is not constitutional, and leaves us open to risk

 

 

[turboplanner]

Agree with you Blackrod

 

 

[JohnMcK]

Hi All,

 

Some information for you.

 

Rule 33 (ii) "it is passed by at least three quarters of the votes those members of the association who being entitled to vote, vote in person or by proxy"

 

Notice the last few words. What this has in the past been taken to mean, is a change to the constitution is accomplished if three quarters of the cast votes are for the change. Not three quarters of the total membership. This can be very good, or very dangerous, depending on your point of view. At my first Board meeting and AGM in 2007 I witnessed a change to the constitution that was passed by just three ordinary members. That is right 1,2,3. Apart from the Board members themselves they were the only ones present, and they were the only votes cast by ordinary members. There were no proxies, and there were no postal votes. (probably because no ballot papers were included with the notice of motion) and there was no checking the membership of the three members present to see if they were entitled to vote. I objected to the vote being taken, and a change to the Constitution effected by just three members, and on the basis of no ballot papers being included with the notice of rule change. This was rejected and the vote cast. On later reading the Constitution I believe the decision to vote was valid as there is no compulsion to include a ballot paper with the notice of rule change. Just 21 days notice of the proposed change is required.

 

There you have it guys. Is this good or is it bad?

 

Cheers,

 

John McK

 

 

[turboplanner]

Separating the discussion from the current time, it's bad because a clique can get going and change the rules to suit themselves.

 

This clause in most Associations usually requires 2/3 of all Members.

 

So any change will have the consent of the majority, and that usually ensures stable operations and a stable Association

 

In the case of an Association with thousands of members that may be too high - a little like Australia's referendums

 

So the future needs thinking through, but the present is not acceptable

 

 

[turboplanner]

I haven't looked up the ACT act, but from memory, By-Laws is possibly the wrong term, I think it's rules, and they usually have a similar requirement for a lot of members to approve them. The present system is open to misuse and should be changed.

 

Natfly will be a watershed either way.

 

 

[facthunter]

Rules of governance should not be easily changed for many reasons, and many have been canvassed. You have to strike a balance between the necessary checks and balances and not making it impossible to bring about a desireable change. This is why we establish quorums and percentages of members present, voting/ total membership considerations. The last ballot we had illustrated the problem. Not enough voted. Nev