NSW member running for office

[coljones]

a test??!!! do u think the representation ratios between the states is ok?....

Why did the proposal to balance the board better (ie Qld down 1, Vic up 1) fail to get the required support at the last AGM? I can't see a point for Vic being under represented the way that it is.

 

Cheers

 

(A candidate? - maybe next year)

 

 

[drifterdriver]

The proposal was actually Sth Qld 2 and Vic 3. This would have made the SQ ratio around 1200 members per BM.

 

 

[coljones]

What reasons were offered for voting the proposal down? Cheers

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Why did the proposal to balance the board better (ie Qld down 1, Vic up 1) fail to get the required support at the last AGM?

I can't speak for anyone else but I voted against because it wasn't balancing the board better - it was simply changing the current inbalance to a different one.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Powerin]

I don't mind geographical representation....even if it means that one board member represents less numbers of people than another. I think a lot of the issues facing our members would be geographical in nature: weather, terrain, local airports, local and state government regulations etc.

 

Could a board member from Sydney's northern beaches really effectively represent the aviation interests of someone from Alice Springs, or Yarrawonga, or Devonport? Or vice versa? Just my two cents.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Crezzi,

 

The CRAA brochure came out looking great - the committee were over the moon about it. I've mailed a copy to you.

 

Thanks heaps

 

 

[coljones]

I can't speak for anyone else but I voted against because it wasn't balancing the board better - it was simply changing the current inbalance to a different one.Cheers

 

John

John (and all)

What do you believe would be needed to obtain better balance on the board?

 

The lack of discussion about representation is a bit disturbing given the high threshhold needed to change the rules.

 

Cheers,

 

Col

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

There was a lengthy discussion on this sometime ago- doubtless someone will post a link to it soon !

 

Personally I'm comfortable enough with email and phone to not have any state based representation - national elections would allow all the members to choose the best people from all the candidates standing. I'd be happy with an arrangement where each state & territory has a BM nominated as the primary point of contact - its nice if they resided in that state but not essential IMO.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

PS happy to help Dave & apologies for getting your thread off topic

 

 

[drifterdriver]

John, you hit it on the head. As we discussed at the time, imbalance one way replaced by another way doesn't help the cause. The fixation on state boundaries is in my opinion the problem. If you look at where the membership resides it would for example, seem a reasonable idea to combine far northern NSW with SQ.

 

Nick

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

I agree with Crezzi. I couldnt give a toss where the board members live. To be brutally honest unless they live in Coffs Harbour my dealings with them will be electronic. All contact that has been made to date with a number of them has been dealt with in a timely and responsible manner. In fact recently I needed to ask the treasurer a question and had a response inside 15minutes.

 

Just what exactly does a historical line on a map that is called a state boundry actually matter? I personally believe that many state based responsibilities, health, education and roads come immediately to mind, are holdovers from an age when the distance between state capitals was almost insermountable.

 

I believe that its more important to have good representation than state based representation. I suspect that Crezzi and myself are not islands. Who else has dealt with board members from outside their strict geographic boundaries. If you did, did you feel that you were dealt with differently, or in a substandard way?

 

Andy

 

 

[fly_tornado]

You really need to have aircraft manufacturers and airport owners represented

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

<PERSONAL OPINION ONLY>

 

the board of directors is the governance and control body. Why then does it need to mirror the operational part of the organisation structure at all? For example given that the board is supposed to govern, what on earth would an operations and a maintenance director do that wouldnt then clash with what the paid operational staff do?

 

In fact I'll go one further and note that while Carol did a fine job of organising the natfly's I dont believe it strictly falls as a natural task of a board member. If anything its more natural that it falls under the operational staff structure (where she can assist as a normal member). That IS NOT to say that she shouldnt have done it, just that people shouldnt associate her involvment in that as a board primary responsibility.

 

Rule 1 The Board shall govern

 

Rule 2, See Rule 1

 

Andy

 

 

[coljones]

Don,

 

In an ideal world the board would be up to scratch with reading the standard reports and formulating adhoc requests as required.

 

The auditor is there to keep everyone honest (despite the fact that there are failures in the audit process - run by bean counters :).

 

On a board there is a need to have some leadership qualities and the ability to do some strategic development and a lot of other things.

 

As to the need to have a beauty quest to fill nominated positions on boards, I am not so sure.

 

The main aim is for a board to keep the staff honest and ensure that the needs of the members are met at the price nominated by the members whithin the guidelines set by the authorities and satisfying the delegations entrusted to the organisation.

 

I see the point in abolishing state based board nominations but they are there to represent the members and that should include getting out there and pressing the flesh to get feedback and offer support and encouragement (that is part of the reason pollies open schools, halls fetes and cans of jelly beans).

 

There has been some implied and actual slagging of the board and the members and I really can't see the basis of it. It was good that Ian posted the board summary but not being at NatFly nor at the AGM I can't move my understanding of your issues much further.

 

I was until recently at the board and management committee end of a large not for profit advocacy operation with a budget and staffing about 20 times bigger than RAAus. It is not easy job to do when head office is in another town and you juggle it with work and family (and the local P&C and scouts). These boards have worked best when the board roles were dished out by the board or mamnagement committee because you avoid silo responsibilities and you allocate the person best able to get the job done. The board is expected to be entrepreneurs and leaders not just cardboard cutouts of their day jobs.

 

Cheers

 

Col