Some RAAus Board Feedback

[turboplanner]

Captain, thanks, I stand corrected on post #14, they do have the right

 

Steve,

 

There was a lot of talk some months ago, that you needed time to sort out the financial situation.

 

So far the membership in general hasn't seen a thing.

 

Have you managed to reconcile the present situation against the 2009 report's assets and surplus, and to account for the massive downhill slide?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

So I watched this debate happen now for quite a few months and have taken to emailing some among you that I trust to try and understand what the underlying issues are. Obviously people are being guarded in what they say for legal reasons, yet at the same time that means that those among us who dont understand all the issues, or what brought them about, are trying to understand in an environment that is exactly what many of you are talking about, ie no transparency and less than ideal communications.

 

That has to be irony at its best!!

 

That in turn leads us to have to make a decision at election time as to if there is a problem or not without knowing the full story. Making decisions which have far reaching consequences without all the facts is a mistake, and one that all of us should be hesitant to do.

 

So, a couple of potentially related thoughts which might or might not be relevant:-

 

1) From my history of working in management levels in large organisations I conclude that no organisation that has a multimillion dollar budget will get every decsion right. In fact the saying that the man who never made a mistake never made anything is most appropriate. RAA fits the bill and will get it wrong from time to time. As long as that is communicated to those that need to know (which may not be the entire membership) and any relevant processes that exist are fine tuned then that is all we as members should and could expect

 

2) Teamwork has been shown time and time again to produce a better result in general than unique individuals can. The ability of a potential board member to be an effective part of a team is vitally important in the positions we are talking about. So much so that I'd personally favour a team player than a brilliant work in isolation approach.

 

3) Most people only want to do a good job, rarely is it the case that there is someone at this level actively trying to sabotage things or run an agenda, If that were the case then it can only succeed if all board members are in on it, or are completely uninterested in whats happening.

 

4) To think that everything at board level can be done without some secrecy is naieve. On the otherhand an attempt to do everything in secrecy is likely to be perceived to be underhanded when in all likelyhood its just a way of not having to think about each agenda item in terms of whether it needs to be secret or not. Not that I support that approach in any way, its probably a simplistic approach to a problem.

 

5) I suspect that the board learning time of 12 months is probably understated, at the end of 12months I suspect you will know enough to be dangerous in your own right. Lets not forget this isnt a full time job we are talking about, so 12 months learning represents how many hours of teamwork with the rest of the board?

 

6) I also supect that if the entire board was replaced in the 18month window that is spoken of then much of value would be lost, I hope we dont have to loose it to understand what weve lost.

 

And Im still as confussed as to what the real issues are as I was on day one, while at the same time becoming very frustrated that Im told there are a bunch of bad things and people at work but cant be told in detail as to who and what they are.....

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

You're right Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well Scotty it doesn't look like we are going to get them voluntarily

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

........the massive downhill slide?

Turbo, when you talk "Massive" are you talking the $50k deficit on the $multi M budget? If so "Massive" is quite an emotional way of putting something that is actually 2.5% of budget.

 

If thats massive then as a comparrison our normal national Annual inflation must simply be astronomical at about 3%.

 

My point, is we need to be careful using highly emotive words, we berate the journo's for using emotive words when they describe incidents and accidents, we need follow our own advice....

 

Theres an approach in business that when in meetings and logic gives way to emotion its time to bench that subject and move on to the next agenda item for a revist at another time. Rarely does anything good from a decision perspective come out when emotions run high and consesus becomes elusive.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Would hundreds of thousands be OK?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Would hundreds of thousands be OK?

It's all relative isnt it? $50k across 9000 members represents $5.55 per member.

 

My post wasnt to try and justify a deficit as Ok, in fact any deficit isnt Ok, but Im not likely to resign from the membership over a $5 per member overspend that with what we've been told, and the 1+1=3 maths that Ive done is probably related to the change in treasurer .

 

Pressumably the fact that we are spending all, indeed beyond, our income has been accepted by the board, who are our representatives. Under normal circumstrances is that a good thing? No, nothing gets put away for a future problems or growth.

 

Steve seems to be addressing that initially with a cost of membership and rego rise which to me doesnt seem unreasonable given the time between rises and I pressume will follow up with a review of the costbase as to appropriatness and value for money. Now if RAA were applying rises like electricity prices,welll that would be a whole different ballgame.... Seriously though, its damn difficult to live without electricity but my wife tells me we could easily live without me flying.... I dont quite see it that way.....but I'm sure if push came to shove her view would prevale....like it does everyother time....

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

You seem to be talking only about this year?

 

Have a look at what I actually said, the start point is 2009, and if you go back over the threads you' ll find what the surplus for that year was.

 

Then research what happened in 2010

 

Then apply this year

 

That will then give you the figures to base your assumption on

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

You seem to be talking only about this year?Have a look at what I actually said, the start point is 2009, and if you go back over the threads you' ll find what the surplus for that year was.

Then research what happened in 2010

 

Then apply this year

 

That will then give you the figures to base your assumption on

Turboplanner,

 

I gave an explanation of the finances at the meeting of members and after having explained it I did not get questions from the floor, however, I realise that you may not have been at the meeting. If you would like to give me a ring I will explain to you what I explained at the meeting. I have said many, many, many times before that if you have a question - ask.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Turbo

 

I hadnt picked up that the starting point was a $400k surplus in 09. In which case, a $450k delta is absolutely significant and worth chasing down. I presume we will hear from Steve in due course. I agree that as a percentage of total budget $450 k is approaching, if not exceeding massive and worthy of advise to members.....<back in my box>

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Turboplanner,I gave an explanation of the finances at the meeting of members and after having explained it I did not get questions from the floor, however, I realise that you may not have been at the meeting. If you would like to give me a ring I will explain to you what I explained at the meeting. I have said many, many, many times before that if you have a question - ask.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

Steve

 

I also wasnt at the meeting and while I dont have any problem talking direct to you, if you were to summarise here then I guess you'd get to do it once rather than potentially repeating the same message 100 times over.... The other benefit is that it might introduce some fact into a whole discussion thread that probably could do with some....:big_grin: might also help with my listening to talking ratio which might well be out of kilter

 

Andy

 

 

[winsor68]

You got my vote Don Ramsey... but my Rep is Steve Runciman. So my question to Steve R as my rep is.. what is your responce to Don R's post...?

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

SteveI also wasnt at the meeting and while I dont have any problem talking direct to you, if you were to summarise here then I guess you'd get to do it once rather than potentially repeating the same message 100 times over.... The other benefit is that it might introduce some fact into a whole discussion thread that probably could do with some....:big_grin: might also help with my listening to talking ratio which might well be out of kilter

 

Andy

Andy,

 

You forget that this site is not the official RA-Aus website and is therefore visited by non RA-Aus members. If I were to discuss RA-Aus finances on a non official website I am sure there will be many hundreds of members asking me why, let alone the board of RA-Aus!

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Andy,You forget that this site is not the official RA-Aus website and is therefore visited by non RA-Aus members. If I were to discuss RA-Aus finances on a non official website I am sure there will be many hundreds of members asking me why, let alone the board of RA-Aus!

 

Regards,

 

Steve

And yet the minutes to the meeting will be published in the RAA Mag as they have for a long time, and that is, or was, available in newsagents for anyone to pick up and read. Still, I understand the point.

 

Andy

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turboplanner,I gave an explanation of the finances at the meeting of members and after having explained it I did not get questions from the floor, however, I realise that you may not have been at the meeting. If you would like to give me a ring I will explain to you what I explained at the meeting. I have said many, many, many times before that if you have a question - ask.

Steve, I gave myself the night to cool off after this arrogant response.

 

In corporate circles what you did is known as the Delphi technique, where someone asking embarrasing questions which could open a can or worms is isolated quickly from the rest of the group by individual private responses.

 

I'm not saying you are aware of the Delphi technique or knew you were doing it or even intended it, but it does show you don't understand that you were elected to keep ALL 9600 members informed.

 

At Natfly you reached about 0.4% of the population, and if I phoned you that would make only one more, and I would be reporting back here anyway, it's better you report here clearly and transparently yourself to at least reach several thousand members.

 

If you did give an explanation at Natfly, it hasn't gravitated on to the site, because all we've seen is a single page with simple diagrammes for the current period, and that in itself is significantly lacking in detail. We haven't yet seen the real issue of what has happened from the 2009 Surplus year to the current year in terms of Asset/funds value, Surplus/deficit, and where any shortfall has gone. That's what you owe the 9600 members.

 

To suggest that this can only be given to members is not valid ( apart from the fact that no members I know have been told anyway).

 

You are not part of a Board of Directors (and I accept that the crazy egotistical notion of renaming Area Representatives to Board Members has led to a lot of the present confusion), of a registered Company administering its own funds and therefore entitled to keep its own business within house as much as it can.

 

You are a members representative of an Incorporated Association operating on PUBLIC MONEY which your have an obligation to account for within the rules laid down for that Incorporated Association as laid down in its Constitution.

 

As such all dispersal of the money collected from the public must be authorised and accounted for and that information is public information.

 

In the case of RA Aus, CASA are entitled to know what's going on day by day, and I don't have a shadow of a doubt that the grapevine has been running hot for months, so there's nothing to be gained from hiding the situation from them, potential investors in airparks, aircraft etc., along with the healthy dialogue coming from very responsible potential Candidates, and also the very responsible existing board members who have been openly explaining the situation and trying to get the present unsatisfactory situation out in the open so it can be addressed and we can move on.

 

I was prepared to wait until the next magazine came out to see of the explanations from the President, CEO and yourself indicated the secrecy was at an end, but in the light of your response, I'll be contacting the ACT Department of Justice & Community Safety today, to see what information is available externally.

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

Turboplanner,

 

I do not consider my response to you arrogant at all. I have explained that this site is not an official RA-Aus website and I will not, therefore, enter into discussion about the finances of the organisation. I then invited you to call me and I would explain to you what I explained at the meeting of members, as I would with any member of RA-Aus. I am not going to enter into a debate with you, or anyone else, as to whether I should be discussing the matter on this forum. I have made my position clear and I will not change it.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[Captain]

Andy,You forget that this site is not the official RA-Aus website and is therefore visited by non RA-Aus members. If I were to discuss RA-Aus finances on a non official website I am sure there will be many hundreds of members asking me why, let alone the board of RA-Aus!

 

Regards,

 

Steve

But Steve.

 

What else are we to do when the RA Aus website is almost dysfunctional, and it does not offer any capacity for a "members-only" discussion area.

 

This is not a "pick-on Steve" response as your input here should be encouraged, however this is just a fact.

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

[Guest rocketdriver]

Turboplanner,I gave an explanation of the finances at the meeting of members and after having explained it I did not get questions from the floor, however, I realise that you may not have been at the meeting. If you would like to give me a ring I will explain to you what I explained at the meeting. I have said many, many, many times before that if you have a question - ask.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

Hi Steve

 

I have been following this thread with interest and am impressed by your even tempered, rational replies to what at times seem to be overly emotional posts regarding the Association’s finances. Clearly there has been a problem, and clearly you are addressing the issues ... and equally clear in my mind is the need to be open and honest as comes through in your posts without washing our dirty linen in public as they say. Keep up the good work!

 

Cheers

 

RD

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Whether the RAAus site is "dysfunctional" or not is not the question. This IS a PUBLIC forum. Steve is doing what he must do in a proper manner. Turbo You are NOT acting for me, and I don't know how many of the 9600 members you talk of ,actually approve the manner of your approach. I appealled to you (and others) much earlier in this thread, to support Runciman. Now you are stuffing it up completely. Build and not destroy. Nev

I absolutely agree with Nev.

 

Turbo, will a few weeks longer waiting to see what is in the mag actually materielly matter? By going the route you put forward, which is absolutely your right, what real impact will that create to our organisation? Being Government in nature Im sure that the hornets nest will be well and truely stired, the only question will be how many innocent bystanders end up stung and will the end justify the means?

 

The fact that this thread and others have been going as long as they have, and dicussions arent only occuring here means to me that the issues cannot be ignored by the board or the operational team or anyone who might hope that the turtle "pull your head and legs in and wait it out" approach is the way to go.

 

Andy

 

 

[drifterdriver]

May I suggest that if Steve is prepared to give up his time to explain the finances by phone to you on an individual basis then you at least extend him the courtesy of giving up some of yours. That is unless you value your time more highly than his.

 

Nick

 

 

[winsor68]

The thing I don't get... if something is OK to talk facts about in a phone conversation then it isn't confidential/secret... So what gives? Why not just state it here...

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

But Steve.What else are we to do when the RA Aus website is almost dysfunctional, and it does not offer any capacity for a "members-only" discussion area.

 

This is not a "pick-on Steve" response as your input here should be encouraged, however this is just a fact.

 

Regards Geoff

Geoff,

 

You are correct but please bear in mind that currently the website is going through an extensive upgrade and re-build. Once this is done then I am sure there will be much more use of it.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[Guest Steven Runciman]

The thing I don't get... if something is OK to talk facts about in a phone conversation then it isn't confidential/secret... So what gives? Why not just state it here...

Don,

 

As I have said, this is not the RA-Aus official lines of communication and this site is visited by non RA-Aus members. I would be happy to discuss it on the phone to a member but I would not discuss it on the phone to a non member!

 

Regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[facthunter]

My point is that he has to do a job. Why not let him finish it ? Surely you want it done properly .Nev.

 

 

[docjell]

Ross- I'm intrigued - I was working over Natfly. What did Eugene get up to? What does he have to explain?

 

Cheers